Archive for the ‘After She Speaks Up – Reporting Child Sexual Abuse’ Category

I am in the process of clearing up and cleaning up (which may mean simply POSTING) information on my blog. the format is often largely Soundoff, but will at least show that I’ve looked up before I laughed out loud, and have taken time to come to my own conclusions, over the years — and as a person meanwhile dealing with both the aftereffects of and various other forms of ongoing trauma, and some threats (such as stalking) such as happens to people who are bounced from DV protection into Custody Battles (which, FYI, is the business plan)…..

This text used to be on the sidebar, meaning it was written in one long chain of paragraphs, viewed three vertical inches at a time. It has now been replaced by almost as much sidebar material (oh well). It does cover significant topics of the blog, as a boat trip down a river will reveal many aspects of the countryside as you pass by — for an overview. However it’s only when someone gets off (reads in the links, considers, or processes) the information, that it will start to make some sense). I am intentionally covering plenty of territory, with periodic links — to introduce the concepts. While this may seem like a meandering trip down a river, in fact, it should demonstrate which Creek we are up, and without a paddle, either. Or should I say, with not enough people paddling forcefully in the direction of land, or even against the current.

Position statement.

Jump in somewhere, or consider it a two-inch wallpaper border to the posts. I write on (and on, and on), am opinionated, but post links to some basis for those opinons, and am consistently sowing certain information on-line that certain groups chose (and I also can back up that evaluation) to cover up. Reason demanded a reason for (and a short history of) how these courts came to be, and from under which rock did they crawl?

Most of us don’t have $139 to spare for an ebook of “Problem-Solving Courts, Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Mainstreaming,” (preview of the 13 chapters here) apparently this wasn’t intended for the parents, themselves, many of who are struggling in the courts, or to feed and raise kids, or continue to house themselves simultaneous with family court cases which refuse to close until all the family and extended family assets are drained, and enough problem-solvers have got a piece of the pie… They publish while we perish…

The book grows out of a live conference where legal, social science, and philosophical dimensions of problem-solving courts—and of the ‘new judging’—were grappled with by an impressive and accomplished group of scholars. [published by two from UNL dept. of psychology/Sept. 2012, Puerto Rico].

Phew, what a hard post to complete! I am still not at all happy with it, but posting the information for future reference, while figuring out better ways to communicate it. We are in the realm of public direct payments to evangelical (faith-based) organizations — from HHS — for the primary purpose of evangelizing. It just so happens that these days many faith-based (Christian) organizations are evangelizing throught adoption, as they’ve been trained to. They have been social service organizations for many years as all, but the more I look at the tax exemption angle — and what churches are, meanwhile, doing to men, women and children in the name of God — I’m starting to understand this as every bit as much “PR” to make up for the damages as I also understand that the Rockefellers, Carnegies, Fords, MacArthurs, (Rhodes), Guggenheim, (Annie E. Casey) and etc. tremendous philanthropic organizations — donating millions (if not billions) to build libraries, concert halls, and other monumental institutions, are doing it (a) with taxes they didn’t pay and (b) with the profits from cartels, monopolies, and in general treating their menials like dirt, if not quite slave labor, and (c) for PR.

What do they have that wasn’t donated to them, or that the followers weren’t talked, or bullied (forced) into handing over? I mean, how many of us really have a say (agreed) to the special tax status churches enjoy and with which to expand infinitely (see internet) without having to file tax returns like regular nonprofits. And then how many nonprofits are simply situated right in church buildings? They cannot really stand independently of government while taking privileges from the same (collectively) to even exist. Meanwhile, government these days is using church-based networks for its own purpose and in my opinion, both have specialized in the hiding assets and money-laundering aspects (while covering up other kinds of abuse) from their followers.

This may not be universally true, but it is institutionally (and in general) true.

~ ~ ~ I was genuinely surprised to realize how blatantly this is happening as we speak.

I would love some morally justifiable excuse NOT to deliver this message, or to sugar-coat it, but see none… I would cut out entire sections, and more would grow in their place, as I continued simply telling what I see — and from government sources (databases, tax returns, corporate registrations, charitable registrations, and public websites advertising the same groups). Finally, it is just getting posted. The substance of it shows up in tables — if you do nothing else, scroll down to them and bypass narrative; AFTER running a search!

So, this post got its start an “Adoption Opportunities” grant series I found (foster care and adoption has been on my mind a while — see page in Children’s Law Centers (NCLN) which thrive off this — and this industry has affected family courts also, by way of promoting the use of GALs for custody cases with even a smidgen of conflict (or domestic violence). To better understand it, please read the comments thread at the bottom of the March 30, 2013 post.Read the rest of this entry »

1. This post has charts and tables in it, run before I had the technical know-how to limit the right-hand-margin.

2. I acknowledge the post is unconscionably long — 17,000 words, including this intro.

3. That said, The TAGGS database does not copy well to wordpress, and is not public-user-friendly. It does not lend to us running flexible reports or sorts, as database ought to, although it’s funded apparently with public dollars. Much later, I learned (this is “as I recall” in a 600++ post blog) the software provider was later taken over by an international (Canada?) based firm, but previous to this had been sued by states or state agencies for failures regarding their performance problems. I have worked with databases before, and know that this level of dysfunction in critical issues would not fly, in small, medium, or very large corporations. It’s so bad, I even started a blog in October 2013 intending to simply print out ALL recipients (unsorted). HHS Giveaways, Government Shutdowns.

HOWEVER, it was my work on grants using this database, and then checking out grantees, which developed my understanding of at least the marriage/fatherhood funding, and what a major problem we have in the country when the average citizens DO NOT understand government fiscal accounting, as we are not intended to. I believe that if we did, there would be a major rebellion over taxation in no way limited to political fringe or other labels, such as “Tea Party.” I encourage people to get involved and get a sense of just who IS getting HHS grants. Run some reports, scan the contents, notice oddities; notice who gets the big ones, or how many 1-time grantees, for example, may get a $50,000 “compassion capital” grant, then (checked at the state registration level) the group gets administratively dissolved, i.e., “take the money and run.” Continuing this practice rewards bad behavior, and allows grants fraud and theft of public money.Read the rest of this entry »

PART I – Six Sisters Sue, including their former Pastor

Am I supposed to “take it on faith” that major DV organizations care who lives, who dies, and which children are being molested by their own,while their church-going parents know damn well that no one’s going to report, as mandated.

More than the care about their program funding and absolutely fantastic websites . . . .

MEANWHILE: Look at this article by Malaika Fraley of the Contra Costa Times:

Ranging in age from 9 to 16, six sisters had been sexually abused by …Child Protective Services went to the Dutro sisters’ Antioch home Aug.

ANTIOCH — Ranging in age from 9 to 16, six sisters had been sexually abused by their parents virtually every day since they were toddlers before finding hope in 1995 that their nightmare would end.

Instead, they say, it grew more horrific as the people they counted on to rescue them — police, child-welfare workers, their church pastor — failed to deliver.

A year after their parents were imprisoned for sex crimes spanning 20 years, the Dutro sisters — Glenda Stripes, Amber and Sarah Dutro, Martha McKnelly, Frances Smith and Christina Moore — are now suing the people and agencies they say failed to protect them as children by not following laws and procedures for handling child abuse.

Child Protective Services went to the Dutro sisters’ Antioch home Aug. 18, 1995, after police had garnered two confessions from their pedophile father because 14-year-old Glenda had disclosed to a church pastor that she was being molested. Had they been given a moment alone with social workers, the sisters say, they would have told them they had been tortured for 16 days in preparation of the CPS visit, after the pastor had tipped off their parents days before calling police.

But CPS, like police, never talked to them apart from their parents, and a light punishment for their rapist father only exacerbated their hellish existence.

1995. SEVEN YEARS LATER, in 2002, SARAH Dutro (then a teen) gives the pastor a full history of abuse, trying to spare others:

The lawsuit, filed in Contra Costa Superior Court last week against Contra Costa County, city of Antioch, Calvary Open Bible Church in Antioch, and seven individuals who are either current or former CPS, police department or church employees. It alleges the defendants were negligent and failed to fulfill state-mandated duties that, if done, would have spared the Dutro children years of further abuse.

One defendant, Calvary pastor Anthony Lee, is named for not contacting police or CPS when a teenage Sarah Dutro gave him a full history of the abuse in 2002 in an effort to stop her mother, Glenda Lea Dutro, the church’s youth adviser before her arrest, from hosting sleepover parties for children from the congregation at the Dutro house.

Bruce Dutro was the primary sexual abuser, while Glenda Lea Dutro facilitated the crimes, often handpicking children for her husband. Both parents physically, psychologically and verbally abused and neglected the children, two of whom are biological nieces that the Dutros obtained legal guardianship of and raised as their daughters from ages 3 years and 18 months.

A THIRD time, the girls spoke up, this time to protect young children from Mexico. FYI — a lot of evangelical protestant churches in California (I can’t speak for Catholics) seem to love to head down to Mexico for missionary work. Supposedly:

For some of them, the sexual abuse lasted into their early 20s.

The parents were arrested in 2009 after an eight-month investigation launched by Antioch police after the sisters came to the department for the third time. The sisters said they were hesitant, having been burned by authority figures before, but anxious that their parents were working with the church to adopt a family with small children from Mexico.

Deputy district attorney Graves and Antioch police Officer Blair Benzler restored their faith in the criminal justice system by getting the 2011 conviction

Let’s go over this again. The first reporting was 1995. The conviction was 2011. Let’s call that one full generation of nonresponse…

I think many women who have been to domestic violence support groups will verify with me that there are loads of Christian women in there, and some of them married to a pastor or a prominent deacon. I am a Christian, but as a result of what I also have seen as to “coverups” I will not attend. Why should I support such an institution, whether it’s Opus Dei related or similar to this crap, above. There IS NO EXCUSE, and this is a hallmark of such groups — their mandated reporters, for the most part, don’t. I was being assaulted in the home in the 1990s, and sought help from plenty of pastors (not only them, but they knew). This is what happens: some churches are taught to imitate their leaders. So there’s a collective silence.

Then, here comes the narcissistic domestic violence agencies and — because they’re into technical assistance and training, and are authorities, “surely” the leadership in the faith communities will respond to their really cool sensitivity trainings, and start sticking up for women. Actually, if the faith community never does respond, it hardly matters — because the primary activity (other than helping run shelters) these groups are into is training and publicizing. So long as that can continue, who cares if the agenda isn’t working, and is guaranteed NOT to work?

Do they seriously think none of the faith authorities read a tax return, program goal? For example, when PCADV’s reads:

(TAX RETURN 2009) purpose: (#3) “To expose the roots of domestic violence in the institutionalized subservience of women in this culture.

. . .that the Bible-toting evangelical communities (some of who are also in on the faith and fatherhood grants streams) are going to buy that line of thinking? There are still plenty of groups around who don’t let women speak from the pulpit, and are actively coaching men in how to control their women. And they aren’t going to go “feminazi” talk especially when it comes to LGBT matters? Even the book of Genesis is pretty clear (let alone of how it’s further bastardized in practice and preaching) – the trouble with Eve was her independence from her husband, and conversing with ‘the serpent.’

✔controlling and/or limiting her behavior (e.g., keeping her from using the phone or seeing friends, not letting her leave the room or the house, following her and monitoring/limiting her phone conversations, checking mileage on her car, or keeping her from reading material, activities and places that he does not approve of)

✔ interrupting her while she is eating, forcing her to stay awake or waking her up

✔ blaming her for everything that goes wrong

ALL of these (and a lot more) were routine in my years of marriage, and going too far afield DID result in retaliation when I got home. He also retaliated upon the children in attempt to sabotage some of my work relationships by simply not showing up in time to watch them when it was known I had to go, not enough gas in the car to get back home from the event, sleep deprivation or interruptions (to be shouted at, or lectured), or trashing the house while I was out.

A leopard doesn’t change his spots through sitting through classes, before or afterwards, and GRRrrrreat way to continue control post-domestic violence is for the courts to order joint legal and/or joint physical custody. This basically means people can’t get away.

Someone has to TRULY not understand the religious minds in what’s going on (talking, USA, today) to believe that this stuff would change a pastor’s attitude, or a church’s. For example — do we not yet understand how the Unification Church has been pushing “True Parents” and the healthy marriage/fatherhood programming, or politically how much Sun Myung Moon’s funding of the far right (meaning, conservative religion) is going on? Have we not read anything by Jeff Sharlett (“The Family” re: the Bushes) The Dominionists, I mean, even some mainstream are starting to catch the drift, here http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/14/dominionism-michele-bachmann-and-rick-perry-s-dangerous-religious-bond.html; I’m not sure I’d agree with that’s where it comes from, alone (referring to the 1960s and Rushdoony. It’s been around before. Like, say, “A.D. 381″ or earlier….}}

Meanwhile, the theory that people can be trained out of bad behavior by enlightened education — and not something like, for example, if it’s a church that has been complicit in covering up child abuse, domestic violence, etc. — the pastor’s out and the church loses it’s nonprofit status pretty quickly if that pastor AIN’T out. They fire pastors for less than this, so it shouldn’t be a hard concept to grasp if it’s presented with teeth not just “T&A” or rather “technical assistance and training.”

I hope these sisters win every dime they’re entitled to and that the public gets so sick of paying settlements for failures of their own officials that they decide to take a stand voluntarily against child abuse right where it counts– and that includes in the churches. I’m saying this as a woman who reported to immediate family first (who were worse than useless initially), and my own pastor at the time, weeks later after another, similar, only worse incident occurred. Both were in my home. Both were with a toddler in the home at the time, a close witness, and both were while I was pregnant and involved me being thrown to the floor, straddled, slapped repeatedly IN THE FACE while being shouted at by this guy.

It got worse from there . . .. And as I have daughters, I am also seriously concerned (as we speak) about my own family member’s obsession with them, and manic need to keep me from having a real relationship with my own kids. It’s known that there is incest in an involved family line (actually ,two involved family lines) as well, although it was not an allegation in our family law case.

Some churches may be decent, but many are hellish, and I mean that in the truest sense of the words. Like batterers, they don’t come out drooling and spitting, but smooth and empathetic many times. On the inside, it’s pretty much like Jesus said — whited sepulchers. And maybe for some, ignorantly. . . . . . Let’s put it this way — what those sisters said is entirely credible (as a possibility) based on my own awareness of this situation, and my own case history. I know how it goes.

Just a reminder — the Jaycee Dugard case also came from the same town, Antioch.

Malaika Fraley and the Contra Costa times should be commended for this reporting. I intend to follow up when I’m less deeply affected by it, which doesn’t make for very good writing, here.

PART II

Over at Scranton Political Times recently, as more evidence that a GAL is recommending custody of little children be switched to fathers who injure mothers, or later get convicted of raping other minors, I have some more commentary — from today. Others (who live in the area) have said that a recent man arrested for raping a teenager over many years, also had his own custody case involving both DV and child abuse; he got custody. Search “Tunkhannock” or “Maurice Hunting” on the site, it’ll show up. Meanwhile, I’m talking about Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence and one of their subgrantees (who is in Scranton), the “Women’s Resource Center” — below. Hopefullly there’s enough to chew on. I discuss the HHS grants some as well (easier to view on the forum than below): Notice all the earmarks:

“To change belief systems and practices that support violence and abuse that disproportionately affects women, and other marginalized people, the DVAP recognizes and promotes the participation of the entire community in building social intolerance towards domestic violence…”

Huffington Post does moderate its comments and has been caught censoring some from protective mothers (long ago, it was circulated). I was responding to Ms. Stevenson’s commentary on recent legislation affecting the Americans with Disability Act (2008 revs, which clarified it after previous interpretations so narrowed the act as to exclude many disabled, including the war-disabled by PTSD).

I quoted a piece from Courthouse News (12/2011) which predated some MSM commentary on the Pentagon misdiagnosing veterans with PTSD to avoid paying for help. Thanks a lot, they just survived a warzone and are coming back messed up, but that being messed up wasn’t from war, it was really just a “personality disorder.”

For anyone who’s come out of abuse (the frying pan) and landed in a custody contest (the fire), this sounds REAL familiar. Hopefully my blog here is “off-road” enough no key-logger or anyother stranger will feel the need to play games with it while I put out this message, again, continued from comments section at Huffington Post, re: Corporate Lobbyists waging war on the Disabled

(see last post). I was adding a comment to direct to here, and while typing, half the post disappeared (without keyboard contact on my part. That’s PROBABLY what I get for comparing war to domestic violence, and the Pentagon’s handling of vets to the family law systems’ handling of “DV-Vets,” and following up with a recommendation we get the next President to RESCIND the faith-based Executive Orders from 1/29/2001 (first two issued by George Bush in a possibly stolen election) and then posting how six sisters in California are suing CPS and the church which covered up YEARS of sexual abuse by their biological parents.

Some of us have been in this “reporting coverup of abuse by major US institutions” long enough that the hacking thing just happens, and it happens in reference (apparently) to specific topics I also note that the US DODNetwork has been on my site a little more than I’m comfortable with.

The top half was deleted, but there’s the conclusion I come to. Really, the problem is that U.S. Citizens have tolerated too much institutional abuse already, starting with the income tax and private banking, proceeding quickly to destroying the currency and forbidding people to accumulate private gold for (decades), and so forth. Basically wars are about Private Greed anyhow (see the book of James for some pontification (: on that).

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

1A. The Pentagon tried to dump its responsibility to its own vets on others by misdiagnosing PTSD as nonreimbursable PD (personality disorder), meaning someone else has to pay, or they can just stay injured. It did this to over 22,000 vets since 2001…

2A. The family law system (Conciliation Courts) tries to dump its responsibility to citizens on the public at large by habitually misdiagnosing individual crimes (domestic violence, child abuse, stalking, kidnapping, etc.) as relationship, family matters, meaning someone else has to pay, or they can just stay injured. Since at least the mid-1990s it has this down to a system and is spitting out situations that involve crime scene cleanups.

Well, I have one line of reasoning — that there is a family court around basically creates an immense loophole; any police officer anywhere can just about get out of arresting domestic violence perpetrators (they could anyway) by, when children exist, simply failing to arrest, and letting it land in the family venue. Ditto with CPS. But even if they didn’t, they still have immense discretion to simply not arrest. If they DO arrest, the DA’s have immense discretion not to prosecute also.

WOMEN’s JUSTICE CENTER /CENTRO de JUSTICIA PARA MUJERES

Santa Rosa, California

(a site I quote below, and refer to often enough) I see has written an October 2011 letter to:

I’m a women’s rights advocate who has been working for the last 20 years in the exasperating struggle to end violence against women. I’m writing because we’re stumped, and we need your help.

My opinion: these feminist law professors and women, in many respects, have for over a decade completely ignored the role of the family courts, and their relationship to the criminal prosecution of (see title) real-time crimes play in simply invalidating domestic violence law, child abuse law, in fact most criminal laws of any sort for women who have given birth. And women who give birth, aka MOTHERS, represents a significant portion of women against whom violence is routine.

In this current climate, and while that off-ramp from the criminal justice system (if the reporting and prosecution even gets there), it is next to impossible for these women to get free from an abuser – with children — and stay free unless HE simply chooses not to sue for custody or further bother her. And, if there’s a Title IV-D child support order around, even if he doesn’t want to bother her, the county can and will go after that family and those kids anyhow. That’s My take on it. So I would not be asking a feminist law professor for help, based on the track record and under-reporting of this scandal. And I’ve talked to some of them (including in my area). However, this writer has a point:

The problem is this: Modern violence-against-women laws are in place throughout most of the U.S., as are crisis centers, hotlines, counselors, and shelters. But a critical piece is missing. We don’t have anywhere near adequate enforcement of the laws. Nor do women have any legal right to enforcement of the laws, nor any legal remedy or redress when police and prosecutors fail to enforce the laws.

As such, the laws are meaningless to us. However, it takes a while — and sometimes costs a life — to recognize this.

. . . But the daunting and particular problem for women is that these absolute discretionary powers are in the hands of law enforcement agencies that are rife with anti-women biases, structures, and traditions. Violence-against-women cases are the cases these officials are most overwhelmingly prone to ignore, ditch, dismiss, under-investigate, under-prosecute, and give sundry other forms of disregard. This disparate impact and denial of equal protection is undermining all the other monumental efforts to end violence against women.

Despite all the high flying official rhetoric to the contrary, way too many police and prosecutors don’t want to do these cases. They know they don’t have to do these cases. They know a million ways to get rid of these cases. They know nobody can hold them to account. And the Supreme Court keeps driving this impunity deeper into the heart of American law. Not surprisingly, the violence against women rages on.

We can social work these cases endlessly, but when police and prosecutors don’t do their part and put the violent perpetrators in check, the perpetrators easily turn around and undo any stability and safety we and the women have attempted to secure. The freer she gets, the angrier he becomes. Without adequate law enforcement, victims of violence against women are doomed. And then they are double doomed by the void of any legal cause to hold unresponsive police and prosecutors to account. And then, all too often, she is dead

Notice that at the end of this eloquent (and I believe, truthful) letter, she refers to the “Judicial Ghetto of Family Law.” It is this Ghetto that has to be addressed if “violence against women” is to stop. To date, we are still the gender that produces children, gives birth to them, no matter how nurturing Dad is. As such, this arena, that ghetto, ALSO has to be addressed, or as an obstacle to life itself for those in it, removed:

We urgently need your help. Not in the judicial ghetto of family law where victims of violence against women are too often shunted to fend for themselves.

Why NOT? Why should women have to fend for themselves in a biased system — because thats where it typically goes after any civil restraining order (see VAWA, below) is put in place. Perhaps if there’d been more “feminist law professors” who’d gone through leaving DV AS MOTHERS, this might have been handled by now. Not saying that it wasn’t a tough uphill battle to start with. But we mothers are certainly not ballast in this journey; just treated like it in these circles!

But in criminal law where the state itself must take responsibility for securing justice for these heinous crimes. We can’t solve this problem without you.

As a first step, please pass this on to colleagues you think would most fervently fight to create a women’s right to justice. And then consider joining in yourself.

We like to believe that criminal law always applies when crimes are committed (the title lists some of the crimes which comprise “Domestic violence” and “Child abuse” and characterize the lives of people who sometimes, after years enduring these things, end up dead, or paying their abuser, which is a form of institutionalized extortion).

BUT — when a case is labeled “high-conflict” or “custody dispute” of any sort, BY LAW (apparently) it comes under the jurisdiction of a different court — which is not a real court, it’s a business enterprise. (See this blog. See other NON-federally-supported blogs or articles.

For example get this (“johnnypumphandle, re: Los Angeles “Public Benefit Corporations Supported by Taxpayers” Not only ALL the people walking through the halls — but the real estate — the halls themselves, apparently are often part of this enterprise! Why this never occurred to me before reading these matters, I don’t know. The family court is in a separate building from the main (Criminal) courthouse in MANY towns and cities across the county. That alone should have caught our attention. Now (same general idea), they are building, sometimes, “Family Justice Centers” as part of a National Alliance movement (see “One-Stop Justice Shop” posts, mine).

I reviewed this material carefully before, it takes a while to sink in. It will NOT sink in if all you see mentally is the visual of the building and its inhabitants. In order to “See” straight, one needs to see and be willing to think in terms of corporations, tax returns, and cash flow. And something relating the words “taxpayer” with “tax-exempt.” As the site says:

We have again reminded the IRS of the same scheme being perpetrated by the Private Corporation – Los Angeles County Courthouse Corporation – with the same bond guarantees by the law firm of O’Melveny & Myers. Taxpayers are still getting stiffed by this scam, since there is no accountability for the money and NO TAX FORMS HAVE EVER BEEN FILED!

Key in this EIN#

470942805

to This Charitable Search Site (for California) — and tell me why the Relationship Training Institute — which does business with and takes business FROM the court, evidently — is still marked “current” when no (zero, nada, zilch, nothing at all) has been filed (and uploaded) by this organization for the state of California as a charity -EVER; even though it’s filed with the IRS? Is that cheating the citizens of California, or what? Here they are (and here goes continuity in my post today):

The Relationship Training Institute (RTI) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, established in 1986* by David B. Wexler, Ph.D. to provide training, consultation, treatment, and research in the field of relationship development and relationship enhancement.

Because — in the 7 years (at least) it’s been operating in California, David B. Wexler, Ph.D.’s group has not bothered to file it’s (by law) annually required tax return with the state (NOTE — which provides the California Attorney General with a Schedule B showing names and addresses of contributors, and has to list government funding) and because the CA Corporations search site is so limited, I can’t see from there OR its founding articles if this is a domestic (Ca originated) or “foreign” (out of state) corporation.

On the other hand, the group California Coalition for Families and Children which incorporated in 2010 (per same site) — and is critical of the San Diego Family Court Practices — has twice received a “file your dues” letter, which you can search at the same charities link, above. It has no EIN# because it hasn’t registered yet.

CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS CSC – LAWYERS INCORPORATING SERVICE

I believe any group that calls itself a 501(c)3 (or “4”) should fulfil the requirements of it. However, there seems a bit of favoritism (OR, This group has no bribe to pay — below the table — for the regulatory agencies, including the OAG?); Emad G. Tadros, Ph.D., checked out the suspicious credentials of a custody evaluator, discovered a custody Mill (plus that a house cat got a diploma from the same place) and put up a website about all this, plus filed a suit, which was simply the right thing to do. In retaliation for challenging the right of the courts to continue their fraud up on the public he was fined $86K in fees, and an attempt has been made at obtaining interest, too. Apparently, this group has not cut a deal with anyone, and so the OAG WILL go after their nonprofit status. Here’s the link to “San Diego Court Corruption.”

So, as to The Relationship Training Institute, I guess not filing with the state is “close enough for jazz The Office of Attorney General.” And also close enough for an NIMH sponsored grant on Domestic Violence in the Navy, too. If our Navy was run this way, we’d be losing a lot more wars.

RTI offers an on-going series of informative workshops and state-of-the-art training programs for mental health professionals and for the public, bringing innovative leaders and teachers to the San Diego community. RTI staff also travel throughout the world training professionals in the treatment models that we have been developing and publishing for over 25 years

So, don’t try to tell me the courts and attorney general are unaware — see its website, and see the detail on its charitable registration. A letter has been sent to this charity, and its site claims it’s approved by the Judicial Council of California to provide CLE credits for its trainings!

(the logos of approving organizations).

Approving Organizations

By the way, Dr. Wexler is listed under another one, IABMCP or something:

The actual EIN# is 751726710 and it’s registered in Colorado as a 501(c)6 ” Business leagues, chambers of commerce, real estate boards, etc. formed to improve conditions..” It has a tiny budget and apparently exists to distribute a newsletter, per 990 (2010 ruling.), registered as a foreign nonprofit (citing the Texas org.) since 1999 and apparently is filing its reports in Colorado OK.

Dr. Wexler anyhow, is on its Advisory Council, along with a long list of mostly but not all male personages, including Deepak Chopra…

I also note that this domestic violence training is very man-friendly… But RTI is apparently the group that does the trainings OUTSIDE the courthouse, which makes them part of the personnel bill. The earlier article was about who pays rents on the real estate, who owns the real estate, of the courthouses themselves? Reading on:

August 25, 2001 – Los Angeles County Courthouse Corporation and others. e.g. Los Angeles County Law Enforcement-Public Facilities Corporation and (too many to name or to discover). The Crusaders think that there are over a dozen of these ‘Public Benefit’ Corporations hiding in LA County. If you are aware of any of the others, drop us a line.

These companies are established as Tax exempt ‘charitable trusts’ under the Federal Statute – 501(c)(4). They direct millions of dollars but are basically unaudited. The Los Angeles County Courthouse Corporation (LACCC), for example, controls projects for $632 million, but as yet has not registered with the California Department of Corporations even though they have issued outstanding securities for this amount.

They have established trust agreements with banks, lease and leaseback agreements with developers, securities agreements with underwriters, legal assistance from high powered law firms, yet they have no employees. All work is done ‘outside’ on authorization from an officer of the Company. e.g. bills are paid, rents are collected, legal services are performed by outsiders through agreements. As an example, O’Melveny & Myers pays the fees for this Corporation.

Is this a donation? Somehow, I think O’Melveny & Myers are not providing legal services for free.

The company has offices in the LA County facilities, claims no employees, but has all of its utilities, telephone, rent, etc. paid by the County.

Who answers the phone? A county employee, doing ‘part time’ work but receiving no pay. At least the Corporation claims to have no employees.

How are bills paid? We have a letter to Henry P. Eng, an auditor , who is told that he will receive a check for $4,730 and a like amount will be charged to the rent due to the corporation in order to balance the books. You see, the Corporation has issued bonds (Certificates of Participation) recently for $115 Million to build the Antelope Valley Courthouse. The Banc of America and four other underwriters have guaranteed the purchase of all of these certificates.

So WHY do I make those claims in the Title of this post today? Well, for one, I research TAGGS grants, and read conference brochures, and pay attention to what groups do – -and don’t — report on, including the various elephants in the room…

I’m not the only one, either, questioning what VAWA is for, except to inspire a lot of anti-feminist backlash, give Fathers & Families (GlennSacks hounds) something to complain about, and a source of funds to set up websites and conferences (ad nauseam) to perpetuate the illusion that whatever a civil — or even criminal — domestic violence action DOES, Family Courts will not quickly UNDO, even if neither parent asks them to!

I almost felt like a traitor (though I was sure in my opinion) with this round of requests I write someone to reauthorize VAWA. WHY? I thought. I already know who’s collaborating with these other courts. Well, another (non-federally funded, intentionally so) site – I like this site, too — explains:

Ever since the U.S. Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was passed in 1994, women’s advocates have rallied again and again to assure that VAWA stays authorized and funded. The steady torrent of threats against the act from antagonist men’s groups has left advocates with little inclination to question whether VAWA is truly delivering what’s needed to end the violence and secure justice for women. But a little-disseminated legal brief we came across recently rips along the fault lines and suggests that giving VAWA a thorough critique may be one of the most important steps we should be taking to advance the struggle.

“The legal brief, signed by a dozen domestic violence scholars from around the country and submitted in 2007 to the Inter-American Human Rights Commission, emphatically makes the case that VAWA not only is failing to protect women, but that this failure is rooted in fundamental flaws in VAWA’s structure and administration. “VAWA is a limited remedy,” the document states, “That fails to protect women or to discharge the United State’s obligations under international law.”

(it’s going to talk about the Jessica Gonzales case, and the IACHR. However, NO — I say that these DV scholars have simply fallen asleep at the switch, or decided to look the other way, to keep their publications, etc. coming. )

In summarizing their analysis, the brief states, “VAWA fails to accomplish four crucial things: 1) It does not provide any remedy when abuser’s or police officer’s violate victims’ rights, 2) it does not require participation of all states or monitor their progress, 3) it does not fully or adequately fund all the services that are needed, 4) it does not require states to pass or strengthen legislation around civil protective orders or the housing rights of domestic violence victims.” . . .

VAWA: “primarily a source of grants” which has not reduced domestic violence

The brief goes on to characterize VAWA as “primarily a source of grants” with non-binding terms, voluntary participation, unmonitored compliance, and which mandates nothing. And the funding is paltry. According to the brief, in 2007, the median total of VAWA grants to individual states was 4.5 million dollars. That’s less than the cost of one wing of a fighter jet allotted per state to combat violence against women.

If the core of this brief is accurate, despite the services VAWA has provided to tens of thousands of women, the message VAWA delivers to law enforcement and other public officials throughout America is disastrous. ‘You can prevent, investigate, and punish violence against women – if you feel like it. But if you’d rather not, don’t worry about it. VAWA doesn’t mandate that you do anything. And if women are upset by that, rest assured, VAWA and the courts have also made sure there’s not a darn thing women can do about it to hold you to account.‘

Most troubling of all, the brief finds that in the time from VAWA’s passage in 1994 to 2007 when the brief was filed, VAWA has not reduced domestic violence in the U.S., despite the U.S. government’s claims to the contrary. As stated in the brief, “Since the passage of VAWA, domestic violence rates have not been reduced in proportion to other violent crimes

This site writes their rationale:

And perhaps worse, these fundamental flaws in VAWA are not even a matter of discussion, debate, or protest among frontline women’s advocates. It’s critical for progress in ending violence against women that that discussion begin.

which they analyze as, and I can see this:

The Tie that Binds

VAWA requires that shelters and rape crisis centers that receive VAWA funding must demonstrate their cooperation with their local law enforcement agencies.

Individual states that administer the VAWA grants have implemented this requirement in various ways. But typically the shelters and crisis centers seeking VAWA grants must obtain signed operational agreements with their local law enforcement agencies. This has given law enforcement veto power over the survival of the violence against women centers, a controlling power law enforcement has not hesitated to use.

People should read this article — and a lot of this site, based in Sonoma County, California (wine country north of SF). I notice that the Family Justice Alliance Center made sure to get a center into Sonoma County — and if I were going to donate to somewhere to stop violence (other than the time I’ve donated, here, and off-blog) it’d be to this group, responsible for the website:

VAWA is a Federal Act of Congress first passed in 1994. By Contrast (and to oppose its premises), the National Fatherhood Initiative is a NONPROFIT started by someone with close connections to HHS, and Washington, and now many legislators — and is not only still funded, but has permeated the structure and purpose of violence prevention, child welfare, and child abuse prevention areas of goverment. While VAWA (which at least went past Congress initially — the NFI did not) promotes one kind of training, NFI promotes the opposite theories.

Then the two groups get together, for example, The Greenbook Initiative and congratulation their federally-paid-behinds for being able to get along, while women continue to die after breeding and leaving abuse. And etc.

The DOJ Defending Children Initiative: even has an “Engaging Fathers” link:

The ILLUSION that there is protection for women and children through groups such as “Child Protection Services” is fatuous. That’s not what they’re there for, apparently. Nor, apparently, are the civil restraining order issuers (typically a domestic violence nonprofit of some sort, or possibly a parent might get one on his/her own) there to prosecute or punish any crime.

I heard this from a woman (grandparent) in an unidentified urban area, regarding her grandchildren’s being in the sole custody of an abusing father AFTER CPS and police had confirmed sodomy and forced copulation with the (young boy):

Hearsay #1:

There are no laws or penal codes against child abuse by a parent. Child abuse by a parent comes under the Welfare and Institution Code (WIC).

The welfare and institution code does ONE thing — offers reunification services to the abuser. The one and ony law mandated by legislators (in such cases) is reunification.

Since the theme is “reunification” (and really, let’s get honest — “supervised visitation” concept comes from this field, reunification), no family court has any interest in re-unifying a protective mother with her child once that child has been completely (and physically) “reunified” with the abuser father. There are no fatherhood-promotion services for this (access/visitation concept is actually a fatherhood concept). Supervised visitation with a sex offender (young) father and mother has resulted in child-rape INSIDE a supervised visitation facility in Trumbull County, Ohio, recently. It has resulted in financial fraud on East and West Coast both (Genia Shockome/Karen Anderson of Amador County, PA), it has resulted in a child literally being supervised by a woman who had criminally sexually assaulted a DOG in Contra Costa County California courts (Welch v. Tippe), and — the commissioner? who made that order, as recommended by her court-crony, is I believe still on the bench — and has been, while we’re at it, on the Board of Kids’ Turn, too. After all, it’s all about the “Kids” and what’s best for them, right? How often do women whose children have been abused get put on supervised visitation for “alienating” the father by reporting — or allowing their kids to even report to someone else unsolicited, like a schoolteacher — real live criminal activity upon themselves?

Hearsay #2:

Child Protective Services labeled our case high-conflict which put it in custody court. Neither the father or I had even mentioned divorce at the time.

This mother says she saw it on their report. I’d like to see that report. Assuming it’s true, this means that CPS knows quite well that they don’t have to prosecute anything against a parent when it comes to abuse of children; they can shunt it off to family court.

Hearsay #3 (to you — this is my case):

When my children were being stolen (abducted), and I was protesting on the basis of a valid court order giving me physical custody, an attempt was made to bring CPS in — although no abuse was being alleged! When I pointed this out, the officers supervising the exchange — which I’d requested for personal safety — refused to enforce the court order, mocked me, and when I realized there was no recourse from this crew, I had to let my “ex-batterer” and the children’s father, drive off into the sunset with children I’d raised, and from this point forward (til today) not ONE single court order was consistently obeyed for more than a month, including visitation or phone contact with me, alternating holidays, or the children with the mother on mother’s day, all of which remained in the CUSTODY order.

In short, if I wasn’t going to voluntarily justify bringing on more (paid, public employee) professionals AFTER existing paid, public employee professionals simply refused to do their job (which I later learned — they don’t have to, even if not doing their job results in someone’s, or even three children’s, deaths. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales).

Talk about “interlocking directorate” – – – – I also heard from a savvy investigator (mother) (noncustodial) in another state how that, literally, when a father is accused AND found guilty of abuse in one sector (for example, criminally, or child support services) this literally causes the father to be declared “incapacitated” or incompetent — making the child a “dependency” case. The court that the mother then walks into is, in effect, a “dependency court.” The state owns her child, and if she can’t ransom it back, too bad. The ransom process is simply this: the hearings go on, and on, and on and as much money is extracted from the mother, who WILL fight back, until she’s broke too, if not in spirit. That’s the plan. That’s not an anomaly or “burp” of the system — that IS the plan.

We have heard also of horrendous situations, and I’ve reported this, of dual electronic docketing. (“Computerized or Con-puterized?” Janet Phelan on Joseph Zernik reporting. One week after she published the layperson’s explanation of this, he was picked up by police without cause and held). We’ve heard of collected but intentionally not distributed child support, in the millions of $$ (Silva v. Garcetti (who was Los Angeles D.A., involving Richard Fine). Even a brief look at what happened to Mr. Fine (besides getting incarcerated and disbarred) and how the California Legislature handled the fact that the entire judiciary was subject to bribery at the county level by payments to judges — from the county — in cases where — the county — was a party. It retroactively granted immunity, and did this quickly, lest the entire judicial system get shut down. (SBX-211) — that brief look should say, what we are dealing with is XX % crooks, and X% enablers or people who can’t themselves get out of the system because by participation, they’d be prosecuted too. Talk about “gangs” . . . that’s a Gang. Sometimes deals go between one jurisdiction and another, making them a little harder to catch (Gregory Pentoney)

Two other things which I’ve heard of from a non-BMCC “let’s ask the expert source” in recent times — and again, I present this as Hearsay, but it’s entirely in character for the venue — of more than one physical case file being kept. One is shown to the litigant when she can afford it (which ain’t always), or qualifies as low-income enough to be shown it. The other is shown and hauled out when it comes to justifying program billing — that one or both parents may be totally unaware of, occurring in their case, under their or their kids’ social security #s, and in their name.

Again, my plan is to curtail posting on this blog (I believe I’ve “said my piece” on most major points) at the end of January, and get about other aspects of life. Oh yes, and I signed the blog up for Twitter, which should curtail the length some, like by ca. (10,000 to 14,000) – 140 characters!

I realize that conversational style isn’t communication, yet the information is urgent to present and get out. The “end of January” date was in honor of the BMCC conference, which I plan to comment on every day it’s in session. Ideally, you will see one post a day from here til 1/31, however, some of the material does cause vicarious trauma to report, which may affect quality of post, or my getting one out on a certain day. While I know what I know, from study, research observation, reflection, and synthesis, expressing it is another matter.

Also, the conversing with the material style is laborious, and takes hours. Whereas in a personal conversation, say, by phone, with interaction, I know I could convey the key FAQs, overall, in 10 minutes or less, and tell people where to find more information, should they be motivated.

So here we go:

Some people I know are headed up again to the Battered Mothers Custody Conference IX in Albany, New York again this year, where the same basic information will be presented by experts, while mothers are welcome to participate from the floor and by adding their square to the quilt, by buying books which the presenters will be selling (last year’s hot-off-the-press available in softcover and at a discount – only $59 — for conference attendees) and donate, too. This is addressed to mothers who are probably being fleeced in the courts, have tortuous situations to handle, and some are paying child support to their child’s or their abuser, which is why they pull it together to come to this conference, seeking help and answers — from the experts.

One difference — a positive one — THIS year is the attendance of Dr. Phyllis Chesler, who also will be selling her newly revised “Mothers on Trial” which I know incorporates some new stories, and I plan to order it on-line.

However, I also know that it’s not about to contain the information on this blog, on NAFCJ.net, or much on the AFCC, Welfare Reform (1996), and the role of the Child Support $4 billion industry in prolonging custody conflicts, for profit. However, it will be a new presenter, and an experienced feminist who I’ll bet is not afraid to address some of the issues of Gender Apartheid (which also results in “Battered Mothers”) in front of this audience, and on which she is an expert. Perhaps she will — as I don’t think others have — bring up the impact of religion on this situation in the family courts. It’s there – -not talking about it would hardly make sense.

At the bottom of this post, I am going to list the Presenters, and brief comments or links on the ones I know. The ones I don’t, I’ll look up. Perhaps in the next post (as this one expanded into handling a few other items).

And in this post, I’m going to charge pretty hard into the entire concept behind this conference, as I did last January, afterwards.

NB: I attended one conference in all its years, but primarily to meet mothers I’d been blogging with; I’d already realized that it was a marketing conference. That’s responsible behavior for people shelling out travel, hotel, and conference fees, not to mention in general. You find out who’s saying what and evaluate it.

The Title of this year’s conference is apparently “IS WHAT WE’RE DOING WORKING”?

HUH?

We who? (Mo Hannah, Barry Goldstein, et al.?)

Working for whom?*

Ask a foolish question, you will get a very foolish answer. Act on those answers and you become a fool. A sucker is born every minute, and I regret every minute of my own “suckerhood” which listened to domestic violence rhetoric for too long, and didn’t think to GO CHECK TAX RETURNS AND NONPROFIT FILINGS FIRST, which might’ve had a different result.

That’s why I believe that it’s the “experts” that should be sitting around the tables in the conference and taking notes, and the women themselves that should be up on stage giving testimony, ideas — and controlling the microphones. Then some of the questions they have might get some answers, through collective wisdom, as women tend to do — when not co-opted into the hierarchical model of relating to each other which is more characteristic of males, and of this society we live in.

The structure of this type of conference is didactic — from presenter to participant. They are the dispensers of wisdom, women & mothers attending, the recipients. Go forth and deliver the expert wisdom to your areas, (seek to hire us as expert witnesses in your court cases) and if it doesn’t work — next year we are going to do the same basic routine anyhow, and your feedback will NOT be front and center, if it is allowed at all.

Seriously — that’s how it goes. And anyone with a child in a custody case has a ticking clock, if not time bomb, which is running. We do not have time to beat around the bush and fail to address things in PRIORITY order.

So anyhow, “is what we (?) are doing working?”

Somehow this is going to be stretched out into a weekend’s worth of material? Is there a better question to ask, such as — what can we do to either clean up or shut down the family law courts if they refuse to clean themselves out, which is unlikely? How many experts does it take to distract a mother’s attention from who is paying her abuser and the judges that gave that kid to the abuser? Why doesn’t this conference ever bring up child support, welfare reform, or mathematical issues, such as economics?

Or, for that matters, why are not the people who experienced abuse considered THE experts, and why are the true experts (the battered mothers) not as informed as the presenting experts on things that others figured out over 15 years ago in this field?

This is, among other things, a marketing conference, and a chance for women to sit with each other and have company in their distress. It is NOT a place for them to actually reform the courts, or learn the most direct possible ways (if any ways are possible) to get their children back, or a crooked judge off their case. That I can tell.

*A comment on the site says women can contribute to a quilt for missing children. (Which somehow reminds me of a church situation — you may attend, women: Here — serve some cookies, greet perhaps, and of course work child care, the sermon and other important things will be piped in from our (male) minister). . . . . now, there are presenters who are mothers on the platform, some of who I know by name, and I know those mothers are not about to rock the boat — by reporting on what you’ll find here, NAFCJ.net, Cindy Ross, Richard Fine (Emil Tadros either, for that matter) and other places. Somehow that information isn’t worth informing Moms of, which results in Uninformed Moms, wondering why things aren’t changing.

You see, professionals (and I was one in one or two fields) know they’re not expert in other fields and so tend to defer to people presenting as the experts in a different field. This works REAL well when mothers in panic, danger, or serious trauma go for help to DV experts who are hired (or volunteered) with agencies which do not themselves see fit to look at the larger picture AND TELL THE MOMS ABOUT IT.

Moreover, once a case — or person — moves out of their area of “expertise” — meaning, case in point for mothers, into the family law system — it becomes “not my problem” and they can, I suppose, somehow sleep with themselves at night (those who actually have functional consciences) without drugs or sedatives, by saying – it’s out of my hands now, I did my part!

Ay, there’s the rub. It’s a win-win for the civil restraining order (DV agency) field AND for the Family Law Field, because no one “out-ed” either field’s collaboration and centralization over the years. No one has done this much to date because so few people follow the funding, particularly experts protesting “Child abuse, Domestic Violence” and so forth.

Slightly Longer answer, Fresh kill, two children (10 & 14) into someone else’s care (foster? relatives?) this week in California. The woman showed up, obediently, for a family court hearing, and was murdered in cold blood, in her car.

Authorities say the man shot his wife, gave chase to police, then shot himself; they were scheduled to appear in family court for a hearing

A man at the Hemet courthouse for a child-support hearing calmly walked up to his wife’s car and fired two fatal shots, then led police on a car chase before killing himself Wednesday morning, according to witnesses and police

. . . .

Costales had no criminal record in Riverside County, and the couple had no history of domestic violence with each other, nor was there a restraining order in the case. However, Costales was accused of domestic violence in a previous divorce.

The two children now aged 10 and 14, we don’t know who their biological mother was –whether the woman slumped over in her car that day, or the former Ms. Costales: However, they were born (do the math, see article) prior to this marriage: 2012 January minus ten, minus fourteen years. Mr. Costales prior marriage had mutual restraining orders as of the year 2000.

‘A HORRIBLE SIGHT’

Kimberly Jones, 45, of Hemet, said she was in her car when she heard the first gunshot, which she thought was a firecracker. She looked back to see Schulz back away quickly.

Jones ducked as additional shots were fired, then ran over to find Schulz bleeding and slumped over in the driver’s seat. Jones, who is a nurse, said she tried to resuscitate the woman in the parking lot as Costales casually walked back to his car.

. . . She moved out, not him….

Schulz told the court in September that she was unemployed and receiving $550 in monthly aid. She asked for Costales to be required to make child and spousal payments and to make payments on their Honda Pilot until she could afford to get her own vehicle.

“I need hearing because of no income but aid,” Schulz wrote in court documents. “Living on my brother’s couch, looking for work daily, been unsuccessful. Children need their own home and stability.”

The age difference: Him vs. Her — was 17 years. We don’t know this situation, but here’s a woman who never apparently even SAID “domestic violence” — and yet still died asking for something reasonable. Did she bring children into the relationship (was he their father?). Did he seek a needy woman with children to make up for loss of his first wife and two sons (now adults)?

Do second wives EVER believe the record on the first wives’ court docket?

I went to look this one up at the Riverside Court, but found out that it’s not even free to view the images, and in doing so, they will know who is looking. So much for public oversight from a safe distance!

Police closed off a portion of the courthouse parking lot, stranding about 50 people who were unable to get to their cars to leave, but the courthouse remained open. The Hemet branch of the Riverside County courts handles family law cases in addition to civil, small claims and traffic issues.

Why did she leave? Who knows? Was this unreported violence, nonsupport, or what? Where are the children going to live now? Who HAS them now?

This was a TANF case. She was on aid — that means that only if there has been violence, or some severe extenuating systems, is she allowed some sort of diversion away from seeking child support from the father. The county wants its programs funded. If “aid” goes out, the County controls the collection of child support. This was likely an administrative hearing — there seems not to be any discussion over custody or visitation. This woman didn’t know, and now never will, what receiving welfare from anywhere in California puts one at risk of. Had it not ended this way, it might have stretched out for years in the courts as well.

Suppose this man had not been just Mr. Costales, but Mr. DeKraii, and been in a real bad mood that day? Who else might have died?

Hence, we have to re-think this phrase: “Clear and Present Danger.” It has 3 usages.

1. In the law, unless it’s been rescinded by now — in California, a Batterer is a “Clear and present danger to the mental and physical health of the citizens of California.” If one continues reading the law, they then talk about something like a task force at the District Attorney level.

2. In Usage by AFCC, “Lack of Resources” to the family courts is the “Clear and Present Danger.”

3. I feel it’s safe to say now, clearly, and quite presently, that “the family courts are a clear and present danger to the citizens (not just parents) of the state of California.”

So much for the domestic violence industry. It doesn’t hold water once it’s in “conciliation court.” They just forgot to tell the mothers this, evidently.

I fully realize that’s “heresy” (but the courts themselves are based on psychological theory and clear intent to undermine the meaning of criminal law and drive business to therapists, etc.) but anyone concerned about my POST-battering relationship, POST-family law custody matters (like we say, it goes, so long as minors and two parties are all alive, until the children reach majority) — I have no criminal record and no criminal intents either. I showed up to court hearings no matter how scared I was, and was forced to sit at the table with my ex, and from this close range, somehow “negotiate.”

People want to “reform” Family Court. That’s crazy thinking. It doesn’t account for the roadkill.

Although I can’t blame the average citizen, who thinks that his /her taxes are going to support something noble or good when it pays these salaries for family courts throughout the land, and more. When the situation hits them, personally (evidence is that not all close relatives or friends figure it out, either), perhaps the 2 + 2 will = 4. Who has it helped, and what’s the ratio of helped to roadkill, to children being tortured, children sent into foster care, parents experiencing MIA children, etc.? That’s a system someone can supposedly MANAGE?

Here’s a summary, a post from long ago (about 1.5 years ago) which I’m amazed it still gets attention, and was today:

I posted this on August 17, 2009

This detailed a murder/suicide which occurred FIVE HOURS after the man posted $1,500 bail and was released. The woman did everything right — almost. She didn’t leave her job and the area, she didn’t evidently know to insist that if this man was released, she be notified (nor was she, apparently) in fact, perhaps she didn’t have a fast enough learning curve to understand that once provoked by resistance, some men become extremely dangerous, at which point in time, it is imperative to stay alive — and anything short of ENSURING that is risky, even putting job retention ahead of it.

I then in the blog talk back to the various circus of people saying “it spiraled out of control” and so forth, essentially failing to analyze. THEN I go back approximately 10 years and look at DV murders in that area and in NJ, compare it to the money spent to stop domestic violence, and have to ask, HUH?

There are a few things I noticed on the re-read of my older post, which I may get out later. For example — that the Prosecutor quoted had been Presiding Family Law Judge, and it had been a civil restraining order.

Is it possible that this very system of civil restraining orders, although they jumpstart safety, are themselves a fail-safe, which still end up with dead bodies afterwards? How sad – in that this young? woman wasn’t a mother yet, either- – she really could’ve possibly relocated. It is easier for a single person who doesn’t have to deal with ongoing visitation, custody orders, the children’s change of schools, etc. — to locate, than a woman with children attached. Not that it’s easy, but it would seem LEGALLY easier. If she wants to go, they were not married, have no property in common — what could LEGALLY prevent her from leaving?

But it’s not that way when there is a family around, in the eyes of the state.

Meanwhile: We have a 7500 word post here, and below are the listed (possibly not the latest list, but from the website) PRESENTERS at BMCC IX.

I have to go now, but will comment another time on those that I know of. It is not an alpha list and I notice that Jennifer Collins (who is a young woman and associated with or running “Courageous Kids” — daughter of HOlly Collins) is on their twice.

Several of these people, I have personally and sometimes several times, talked to about why there is so little tracking of AFCC, fatherhood funding and other things, in their advocacy.

2012 PRESENTERS Bios to be added shortly

Jennifer Collins

Carly Singer

Michael Bassett, J.D.

Carol Pennington

Liora Farkovitz

Lundy Bancroft- author

Barry Goldstein – author, former attorney

Joan Zorza – DVLeap, doesn’t blog family law matters

Kathleen Russell*

— *of Center for Judicial Excellence. Won’t report on AFCC, barely reports on fatherhood funding, but loves high profiles. Not a mother.

Connie Valentine (CPPA)

Karen Anderson (CPPA and her case is detailed in Johnnypumpandle — but this crowd simply ain’t interested.)

Phyllis Chesler

(if there were better company I’d try and get there this year, to meet her)

Gabby Davis

Loretta Fredericks

Loretta Fredericks in my opinion should not be allowed to present. She should be put on the spot and have women fire questions about her. Unfortunately, so few women know ANYTHING about MPDI, Duluth Abuse Intervention Programs, Battered Women’s Justice Project, how much TAGGS says the MPDI (etc.) got (HHS funding) — or the infamous collaboration with the AFCC in “Explicating Domestic Abuse in Custody” (or similar title) which was also public funding. She also is featured in AFCC as a presenter, i.e., on the conference circuit? Has she influenced them to understand abuse — or vice versa. This situation (not her personally — we’ve never spoken) PERFECTLy represents what Liz Richards of NAFCJnet has correctly (my research validates this) calls a DV expert functioning as a “heat shield” for fatherhood providers. They lend legitimacy where there is non.

Michele Jeker

Maralee Mclean

Angela Shelton

Wendy Murphy

Jennifer Hoult

Sandy Bromley

Renee Beeker (advocates court watch)

Joshua Pampreen

Nancy Erickson

Karin Huffer

Jason Huffer

Crystal Huffer*

*Huffers talk about and help women deal with Legal Abuse Syndrome).

Holly Collins

Jennifer Collins

Zachary Collins

Garland Waller

**Collins and Waller are central to the conference and high-profile, I believe people know about them.

Dara Carlin*

*Formerly DV advocate from Hawaii, then it happened to her. Didn’t notice that the legislator she was sure was on women’s side actually had close ties to a Fatherhood Commission in Hawaii (a What?). This was how I learned about Fatherhood Commissions, actually. She didn’t “Get” it. Also hadn’t noticed that AFCC was presenting — in Hawaii — on PAS, etc.

Toby Kleinman

Linda Marie Sacks

(mentioned in my 2nd “About This Blog” — how to get to the Supreme COurt citing Dr. Phil, Oprah, and a Radio show onesself was interviewed on, thereby giving the rest of mothers protesting abuse a nice reputation for not being too bright. Seriously!)

Rita Smith*

(NCADV Leadership. NCADV is atop the pile of statewide Coalitions Against Domestic Violence which are state-funded, although not too much funding. It takes fees from these organizations and sells things, has conferences, etc. Was cited positively by Women in Fatherhood, Inc. which I find interesting …..)

Eileen King (“Justice for Children” also I think on Linda Marie Sacks case, which Supreme Court refused to hear).

Mo Therese Hannah

(self-explanatory — and running the conference, with help It says from Ms. Miller. I don’t recoqnize the other names).

Liliane Miller

Raquel Singh

Tammy Gagnon

Louise Monroe

Chrys Ballerano

Hopefully publishing this post won’t cost me what friends or colleagues remain (which is few anyhow), but I always am favorable to truth over friendship, when the latter compromises it and so much is at stake. This conference, unless it exposes the operational structure, financing, and purposes of the entire family law business enterprise, can probably not help mothers win their court cases, u9nderstand the situation, and will redirect their activism towards asking for more task forces. We just got this — and not one family law spokesperson on the last one (for Children Exposed to Domestic Violence).

Perhaps they all need a year off, and to go take a starter course from H&R Block, spend some time on their state corporate and charity websites, learn how to write a FOIA, WRITE some, and look at what comes up. NOTE: That’s not Rocket science, doesn’t require a Ph.D. and they won’t perish if they actually learn from sources, in tead of as interpreted through people who have things to sell.

I reserve judgment (any further judgment) until I find out who the other presenters are. Meanwhile, say some prayers for the two children of Mr. Costales and his “estranged wife” he just murdered, while she was complying with a court order in order to have enough to live on after leaving him, this past week in Hemet California — which is in Southern, CA, Riverside County.

INTRO:

Overall, I seriously doubt that it’s possible to clean up or straighten up the family law system — at all, and I am utterly serious in saying this. There is too much incentive for fraud, and too much need to “pay the mortgages” in the courthouses by ordering more services, and too little oversight and tracking of the funding. There are too many public employees forming nonprofit corporations to franchise for-profit curricula (marriage, parent education, etc.) — in the old NonProfit/ForProfit combo.

There are too few tools in many states to track WHO is repeatedly forming corporations that go belly-up, only to have a partner or other person formerly on one board just go forth and from another one — in another state. Many of these groups, as my last post showed, are membership organizations — membership is charged, conferences run, and we have some evidence from county payrolls or vouchers from court-connected professionals, that the public is billed to fund attendance at nonprofits whose ONE purpose is to expand their services. Child support is one of the worst of these, but they come in all flavors.

Despite the bleak outlook — I still report and I am going to finish reporting on this field of Parent Coordination until it is CLEAR what the AFCC professionals’ intent is in establishing this field and, if possible, having it legitimized at the state level by establishing standards, or by mandate.

The Association for Family and Conciliation Courts runs many task forces at a time, as part of its strategic plan to expand (itself) and transform the “old” language of criminal law into more friendly-to-its-practitioners concepts. One of them which they are taking VERY seriously in promoting — and I take VERY seriously in protesting — is Parenting Coordination.

Parents didn’t ask for this — it’s no grassroots movement, and from what I can tell how it’s been (1) advertised (2) pushed and (3) practiced — there’s no genuine NEED for it either. For that matter, I see no historical record that parents as a sector (both male and female) asked for the family law system, either.

Why I’m addressing it — again:

(1)

AFCC PROMOTED IT – NOT PARENTS. NO REAL NEED EXISTED, and SERIOUS ISSUES & OBJECTIONS DID. The LizLibrary lists a page of them, and towards the bottom, some legal opinions, too:

Parenting coordination constitutes continuous discovery by each parent into the affairs of the other

Parenting coordination can never be “voluntary” because it implements unwanted court orders

Parenting coordinators demand that the parties sign “consents” that give up constitutional rights

Some have demanded that parties give up the right to go to court, contact police, or involve their lawyers

They are hired or appointed under shadow of the threat of court sanctions or loss of custody

They are agreed to by parties ignorant of the repercussions, in fear, out of funds, or overwhelmed

Parenting coordination does not result in increased family well-being

Parenting coordination does not make children happier, healthier, or better adjusted

Parenting coordination is not therapy but coercion backed by the state’s police power

Parenting coordinators tend to be hostile to, and at odds with attorney-client relationships

They align with GALs and other court appointees in a pretext of “focus on the children”

They encroach on parental-child relationships and decision-making

They undermine the parental authority children require for a sense of security and well-being

Instead of at least one authoritative parent, children have no authoritative parent

Petty tyrants place a premium on the perception of who is cooperating with them

Cooperation with the parenting coordinator is court-ordered and

They alone decide if a parent is “cooperating” with them

From the same page, a case “Parenting Coordinator Out of Control” — and I have to note that it’s an appeal from an order at the FL (presumably 20th) Circuit Court Level bearing Judge Hugh Starnes‘ name!

The Hon. Hugh Starnes showed up in yesterday’s post, where I was simply blogging an AFCC judge, and also his nonprofit in FL with the initials AFLP (logo on the post). I also happen to know he was quite active in FL-AFCC Chapter establishment, which seemed to have the primary agenda of getting parenting coordination passed in Florida. They have since succeeded, I believe, too.

Like I keep saying — sometime others will acknowledge — parenting coordinators are themselves pushy, and AFCC pushed Parenting Coordination, in fact they are one set of bullies when it comes to getting THEIR priorities into practice, then law – citing it’s already in practice anyhow. This is primarily what AFCC does. From the organization’s point of view, this is phrased as “innovative” and “helping” and “problem-solving.” The problem is always the recalcitrant parents, and the UNFORTUNATE vestiges of separation of powers (legal/judicial/executive branch) and little details like confidentiality in a lawsuit, and legal restraints. Here’s a link to Parentcoordination.com’s complaint about the legal limits part – and their plan of PC as an end-run around those limits!

“The Court’s parenting coordinator orders unconsitutionally delegate judicial power and violate due process… The Special Master Order’s requirement that Appellant pay for the parenting coordinators to whom she objects violates law and public policy… The Special Master Order requiring Appellant to waive her medical privilege violates her statutory and constitutional rights to privacy…”

AFCC could care less. They DEMANDED it and are still finishing up trying to get this mandated in every single United State.

Even the brother of the Marriage Promotion President, the “Family” family, George Bush — as Governor of Florida, Jeb Bush, FL (2004) had the sense to object based on sound principles. A newly formed (probably for this purpose) chapter of AFCC strategized, lobbied, publicized, practiced, and finally managed to ram it through, over his veto. It only slowed them down slightly.

June 18, 2004

Ms. Glenda E. Hood Secretary of State Florida Department of State

By the authority vested in me as Governor of Florida, under the provisions of Article III, Section 8, of the Constitution of Florida, I do hereby withhold my approval of and transmit to you with my objections, Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 2640, enacted during the 36th session of the Legislature, convened under the Constitution of 1968, during the Regular Session of 2004, and entitled:

An act relating to Parenting Coordination. . .

Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 2640 authorizes courts to appoint a parenting coordinator when the court finds the parties have not implemented the court-ordered parenting plan, mediation has not been successful, and the court finds the appointment is in the best interest of the children involved.

He lists 5 objections, two of which clearly recognize that it in effect allows a parent coordinator to function as both judge and jury of parents’ or children’s rights, and one of which is that it fails to protect victims of domestic violence. I also note from the language that it looks like a Committee (not the general legislature) attempted to have this substitute for an existing Senate Bill. . . . .

(2)

The “Termini/Boyan Factor” — The People fixed on training parent coordinators have a terrible track record when it comes to staying incorporated(I found another one today — Seminars for Advanced Interdisciplinary Family Professionals, or “SAIF.” Formed in 2006, it’s already behind in its filings, in the state of Indiana. And it appears that, again, a nonprofit/for-profit combo, originating not with litigants, but with the professionals, was set up to give (again) some family law attorneys the right to crow about their own parent coordination training seminars they helped run themselves. By and large, that seems to be the situation in Indiana — which it seems New Hampshire liked a lot, too. Termini/Boyan are Georgia/Pennsylvania — but same general idea.

(3)

The language of “parent coordination” is impoverished and repetitive. Here’s an example, from a family law attorney, a bona-fide certified one (although the nonprofit membership she cites all over is anything but “bona-fide” when it comes to filing charitable returns in the home state!)

it’s even from an Amicus Brief (I THINK it got filed, although this isn’t the stamped version). Actually, this is where the title to my post came from:

In the statute of authorities for this brief, bearing the name “Leslie Ellen Shear” and “Stephen Temko” (although the certificate of interested parties form bears the name Shear, and is dated 1/27/2011), after the legal and rules of court list, comes:

“Treatises, Law Reviews and Other Authorities” – and on reading it, I see it quotes, among others:

The nonprofit ACFLS (which she’s head of Amicus Brief Committee on, or was)

AFCC itself (at least twice)

A host of people, known to be AFCC professionals anyhow, for those who pay attention — such as Ahrons, Coates, Deutch, Greenberg, Kelly, and who knows about some of the others. These quotations include those from the AFCC publication, Family Court Review (joint with “Hofstra Univ. School of Law”) and AFCC newsletters, etc.

Note title — trying to legislate parenting coordination. Another set of professionals tried to write “Kids Turn” into law around 2002, right? (see my “Kicking Salesmanship Up a Notch post.”) then-Governor Gray Davis (properly!) vetoed even the version of it put out which didn’t overtly say “Kids’ Turn” on its face.

So here’s a sample section of this Amicus:

On page 4, quoting AFCC person Greenberg (whose writing I also ran across) cites who came up with the idea, vaguely characterized as:

In 1994, the concept of parenting coordination was spawned by a concerned group of professionals in California and Colorado who realized that some high conflict families remained chronically mired in conflict and required something different. . . For these families, the traditional tried and true approaches to containing familial conflict such as litigation, mediation, forensics, and therapy had not worked. Thus, the concept of parenting coordination was conceived as a different and needed dispute resolution intervention.

(Tried and True? Try Tried and found seriously wanting. Don’t believe me? Look here. I’ve already mentioned the Seal Beach (CA) massacre enough times, so here’s one fresh off the press — like YESTERDAY, in Florida. Actually, it seems there’s an acquiescent mother in this one, even after Dad murdered the son, the surviving children (including one witness to that) miss their Daddy. They shouldn’t be supervised, but be able to go to events like church, sports, etc. Sounds like perhaps this is a stepfather (or second family) situation here, judging by age of the children:

ORLANDO, Fla. — A former Orlando police officeraccused of killing his son was back in court, arguing for custody rights to his other children.

Timothy Davis Sr. won a victory of sorts Tuesday when ajudge granted him the ability to pick up his younger children from school, including his 9-year-old daughter who authorities said witnessed the killing.

The retired police officer is accused of shooting his son, 22-year-old Timothy Davis Jr., to death at their Apopka home in what he said was self-defense after his son attacked him, injuring his knee in October.

Here’s another involving 3 children, and a custody hearing, plus prior assaults on the child and wife. Dad managed to get himself shot (to death) after apparently attacking a state trooper. I do not call this ‘tried and true.” This was an American military, married in Germany, but the divorce action appears to be HERE. He also was Marine Corps. Here’s one from Texas; 40 year old father, who apparently had custody? (or certainly unsupervised visitation), emails nude pictures of his 12 year old daughter. This man was living with his mother who, thankfully, was honest enough to do something about her pervert son, although somehow the courts weren’t alert to this in custody decisions:

by KHOU.com staff

khou.com
Posted on December 8, 2011 at 8:58 PM

KATY, Texas – A 40-year-old father is facing charges for allegedly distributing nude photos of his 12-year-old daughter online.
According to court documents, the suspect was living with his daughter at his mother’s house in Katy when the offenses occurred.
Investigators said that in August of 2011, the suspect’s mother found emails sent from the suspect’s gmail account that contained nude images of children. Some of those images were of the suspect’s daughter, the grandmother said.

Sorry to bring up this very unpleasant reality-check, but when in Amicus Brief a parent-coordinator pusher talks about previously tried methods that work — the definition of “works” or “tried and true” generally just means “tried, sometimes resulting in death, physical or sexual abuse of minors post-separation, or having minor children showing up in child pornography in father’s possession.” All of these were from December 2011 news articles, only.

Keep these incidents for a point of reference while I quote from p.12, a whole chapter on how parent coordinators have such difficult parents to deal with, poor them:

… cases are usually referred to parenting coordination because they are chronically litigious and difficult to manage.** These parents have often had several attorneys, evaluators, and mediators — professional hopping and shopping is rampant. Their court files are thick with motions, court appearances, and allegations of wrongdoing by the parents.

**Difficult-to manage parents are the bread and butter of the family court. They are the income producers. Assigning them to parent coordination is yet one more source of income for the professionals, taken from either the parents, or (looks like there’s some effort to make even broke parents participate in this too — AFCC-CA has a workshop or presentation, on the 2012 hearing on this).

Perhaps the professionals in question should re-think the business of “managing parents” to start with.

So, the opening quote to this chapter is from two long-time AFCC professionals (Coates/Deutsch) in an AFCC publication?, although it’s only 2004, using an AFCC-originated concept and term, “high-conflict families” (although I hear Bill Eddy now says they are high-conflict individuals — see my post on “yet another AFCC wet dream.” and his High-conflict Institute….)

The child custody cases referred to parenting coordinators are the most complex, acrimonious, difficult and demanding cases. Most parents regain their perspective and bearings within two years of separation, and do not need this kind of intensive and ongoing service model. Parents who continue to re- turn to court with enforcement and modification requests after completing co- parenting educational programs,* and after a child custody evaluation are can- didates for parenting coordination,

* perhaps this speaks to the quality of the co-parenting educational programs, more than the parents.

* or perhaps they are pissed at being forced to take co-parenting classes to start with, not mentioning affected if they also have to pay.

Parents who need a PC intervention are typically a special group for whom the passage of time has not reduced the rage and angry behaviors of at least one if not both parents.

A casual dismissal of whether it’s just one — or both — parents here. We KNOW that many of these cases — not just some — are in fact cases involving danger, abuse, and etc. These cases do NOT belong in family court at all — but they are there because of greed of professionals, and because of the fatherhood movement (backlash to feminism) that incentivizes and insists that single motherhood is bad for kids. For that matter, even if Mom remarries happily, it’s still supposedly bad for the world if biological father isn’t in his kids’ life.

In short — Ms. Shear and Mr. Temko (whoever drafted this) — are, with their colleagues — unable to literally distinguish between one parent and another when discussing “parents” in front of others who have some privilege (like a statutory justification) or grant to give them.

BUT — their own handbooks, and some appellate cases already involving parenting coordination, show clearly that they are QUITE able to distinguish one parent from another, and not only do, but literally plan how to, target mothers, specifically, for badmouthing and possible intervention in the form of getting the kids away from her. (I have two links to parent coordination handbooks on this post, you can check them out.).

The 10–20% of parents who remain in entrenched and high conflict two to three years after separation/divorce are significantly more likely to have severe personality disorders and/or mental illness (Johnston & Roseby, 1997).

You can’t see it here, but on the pdf it shows: in this quote, we have a triple-layer AFCC site. I believe Johnston is probably Janet Johnston (AFCC Board, or was). Kelly, (below) who’s being quoted in the section, if it’s Joan B. Kelly, has been called the “grande dame” of AFCC and mediation promotion in the family law courts. She runs a Northern California Mediation Center, and obviously publishes too. And Shear is AFCC. So — if so — that represents:

AFCC Shear quotes AFCC Kelly quoting AFCC Johnston, as to parent coordination, which is an AFCC idea. (this is FAR more common than most people — who are less obsessive about looking things up than me — realize. I have labored through some pretty detailed writings (NYState) where when they ran out of ideas, they simply restated them, and I literally read ALL the footnotes too, most of which were “ibid.”

Understanding the characteristics of parents with severe borderline, dependent, narcissistic, and antisocial personality disorders, why these parents react so strongly to rejection and loss, how the child is used in attempts to re-stabilize their functioning and punish the other parent, and how personality disorders are exacerbated by stress, conflict and the adversarial system will facilitate more effective work with these difficult clients.

I don’t know how to state this clearly enough. The difficulty any professional has — who by definition holds an option to quit the profession (which they chose) in dealing with a ‘difficult client” is no comparison with the difficulty of dealing — year after year thanks to policies — with an “ex” who has threatened to kidnap or kill, who has beaten one before, or who may be and/or has molested children, possibly one’s own (dep. on the case) before. Suppose the shoe was on the other foot? Again, if professionals don’t like the difficulty they have an option — find another line of work.

But thanks to their insistence on THIS line of work, i.e., at public AND private expense, and explicit danger to the communities — almost no parent — and I’m going to say mother, specifically– can actually get free from real criminals they’ve had children with, even when he’s already in jail.

I know of one case where the person has already done time in an unbelievably severe situation, and this mother/daughter who already went through hell — is being stalked again. Until she’s safe, I’m not naming names, but once she is/they are, I will – because this case was high-profile and has been in the news.

One point of view is dealing with comfort, and potential burnout, in the performance of one’s duties that have internationally networked, federally-funded, county-judicial-level endorsed, and more — support groups. The other is of staying alive, housed, and after that, functional and employed at all.

If one continues to read the Amicus, it continues to complain and blame. The next quote by Shear is of Shear. Here’s a little further on in the Amicus:

Parenting coordination is a very intrusive model, inserting state authority into the daily family lives of parents and children. With those intrusive powers comes a duty to exercise restraint, discretion and wisdom.

This work often creates the perfect storm. Parenting coordinators struggle to avoid being triangulated into the family’s conflicts.

Well, they triangulated themselves in there to start with, intentionally! Which shows a lack of: “restraint, discretion, and wisdom” per se.

The only thing that is clear about appointment of parenting coordinators in California is that family courts are without jurisdiction to make them without a stipulation. Moreover, no published case has upheld orders resulting from a stipulated appointment of a parenting coordinator.

The quote from Greenberg in this Amicus acknowledges that professionals in California & Colorado (two hotspots of family law leadership; Center for Policy Research/Jessica Pearson et al. are in Denver) “spawned” the concept. Or rather, it “was spawned” — we can’t name an individual father, so perhaps it was a sort of psychological gang-rape that produced the idea (just kidding). Unlike “collaborative law” which actually names a father, “Stu Webb” out of MN. . .. And that this began in the 1990s.

We are now in 2011. Perhaps it’s time to admit that it’s a bad idea to start with; if even in California — where AFCC originated — they can’t get it into law!

The text continues — and understanding that I don’t know the underlying case, have not read the entire brief and am not an attorney, I’m to add a comment to the next section:

Of course, courts have no power to modify statutes. Statutes prescribe and proscribe what courts may do.

Damn right they do! On the other hand, has that really slowed down AFCC initiatives, has it? I think there’s been a track record of resounding success, if getting around constitutional and statutory limits pending changing the statutes to accommodate more income streams to court-connected (or formerly court-connected, like retired judges) professionals… is what’s intended.

The California Constitution (art. VI, § 22) prohibits the delegation of judicial power except for the performance of subordinate judicial duties. A trial court lacks either statutory or inherent power to require the parties to bear the cost of a special master’s services, even where it may have the authority to make the appointment. (People v. Superior Court (Laff) (2001) 25 Cal.4th 703)

The Court of Appeal reversed trial court orders delegating authority over the visitation schedule to a child custody evaluator, requiring one of the parents to participate in psychotherapy and requiring that all future custody mat- ters be heard before the same bench officer in In re Marriage of Matthews (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 811, 816–817 because there was no statutory authority supporting such a delegation.

Just GUESSING here, but perhaps if over a 21-year period (in one state), it’s still being stated that there are Constitutional limits on delegating Judicial power, and three years later the Governor of Florida (Jeb Bush) brings it up in a reason for vetoing a parent coordination stipulation — there just MIGHT be a good reason! Parent Coordination is hardly an Occupy San Francisco (or anywhere else in California) grassroots protest or demand, is it, either?

We’re third generation fatherhood programs out here, we are also probably at least second-generation post-TANF (1996), post fatherhood (i.e., about 15-16 years since they passed), and perhaps– just perhaps — the last thing this state needs is more ideas originating from this nonprofit and all its collaborators in therapeutic jurisprudence great ideas.

Perhaps — just perhaps — it’s a good thing if constitutional and statutory limits on out-sourcing the judicial function mean something around here, for a change! Be content with what you got so far, as authorized by access/visitation (three categories of potential program fraud enabled) and all the marriage promotion money too, plus lots of the nonprofits — like ACFLS — not even bothering to report into the state Registry of Charitable Trusts (OAG) anyhow!

(REASON 4)

(4)

Moreover — like most AFCC promotions — the language promoting parent coordination continues to refuse to think or talk in terms of legal rights to INDIVIDUALS as the Declaration of Independence asserted, which helped kickstart the USA, claims they are. The language of parent coordination is continually pluralized, or group-talk. It does not, really, acknowledge that a person could be a member of a family (like “parent” “father” or “mother”) and yet really have — and deserve — equal standing as an individual in any matter, before the law.

Here’s an example from ParentCoordinationCentral.com (Termini/Boyan site). These are the supposed GOALS OF PARENT COORDINATION:

Educate parents regarding the impact of their behaviors on their child(ren)’s development.

[supports my thesis that AFCC members are often frustrated teachers. They want to teach EVERYONE, and if people don’t agree, they are clever about figuring out ways to force this, and be paid for it, too.]

Decrease inappropriate parental behaviors to reduce stress for the child.

[goes with AFCC goal of switching from a legally defined set of prohibited behaviors to an arbitrary, subjective, and personalized version of what is appropriate or inappropriate parental behavior. Instead, how about just accept the basic definitions in the law, and as to court orders, compliance with them?]

Work with parents in developing a detailed plan for issues such as discipline, decision-making, communication, etc.

[Good Grief! — Go have your own children, and raise them — well. Let’s see what fine examples they are, then parents can judge FREELY whether Mr. , Ms. & Mrs. Parent Coordinators are competent to make these plans. I mean — the concept is ridiculous! What about various cultures and family values, so long as they are not child abuse, domestic violence, or otherwise illegal?] [Even then it probably wouldn’t be a comparable situation, because the psychologists involved with the court, and AFCC professionals can usually drum up plenty of high-paying business, whereas a lot of the parents they are dealing with probably, by the time they are on the scene, absolutely cannot.]

Create a more relaxed home atmosphere allowing the child to adjust more effectively with the new family structure.

[You want to have a more relaxed home atmosphere with children/ Again, go have your own and show it to us. Then we can, awestruck by your competence – – and if we want to — copy it!]

Collaborate with professionals involved with the family in order to offer coordinated service.

[that’s closer to the real reason for it — more business referrals to colleagues]

Monitor parental behaviors to ensure that parents are fulfilling their obligations to their child while complying with the recommendations of the Court.

[Children need due process, and they need an active, and respected Bill of Rights, for when they grow up. One purpose of the Bill of Rights was to keep snoops out of one’s private business, so long as that business didn’t ramble over into the criminal arena. It’s called LIFE, LIBERTY and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. How can one pursue anything with the thought police on one’s heels?. . . . .

Anyone who’s trying to function as a parent coordinator, and talking about children’s needs constantly (to justify it) apparently doesn’t comprehend what long-term dedication to one’s family AND country entails. It entails respecting its laws. I have before blogged an SF-area parent coordinator and family law attorney, who posted on his own site that the Constitution needs to be scrapped and rewritten, why revere it like Christians revere their Bible (guess he’s not one, and doesn’t understand how few Christians actually practice what’s in their Bible — or Constitution — to start with…)]

Parenting Coordination offers a much better way of resolving parenting plan issues than returning to court. And the resolution comes much faster than waiting for a court date and then the court decision. The Parenting Coordinator educates the parents about the harm to the children of hostility between parents, mediates issues as they arise, and if the parents are unable to resolve minor issues, makes the decision.

As ever, when selling their services, AFCC professionals see themselves as the mature adults on the scene, and the parents as a “plural,” and refuse to assign responsibility where it’s perhaps due. They seem to utterly lack curiosity in fact-finding as to that matter. This is understandable, because they deal in “psychology” more than law– which is the culture of the association. While two individual parents are often involved, in the marketing prose, it’s always “the parents” v. “the helping professionals”

However, once in the door, and in practice — then they are quick to blame ONE parent, often the mother, and recommend severe intervention, often removing of contact with the children to counter supposed “alienation.” In other words, they are hypocrites — professing neutrality and to be helping, but planning in advance (in this case) to do harm to one gender — the female, should she as a parent (mother) counter them.

I blogged this earlier, but again (from the same site) — here is their “sample” report from the handbook:

A handbook for the purpose and practice of parenting coordination prepared by PCANH.

Parts of this were credited (fn1 inside) to “Families Moving Forward, Inc.” in Indiana. This is a nonprofit formed in 2005, EIN# 432074631 with principal listed c/o “Gloria K. Mitchell.”

So of course I looked this person up — she is a Rising Star Super Attorney, member of National Association of Counsel for Children, and works in a four-woman firm. The nonprofit, however, is categorized as “exempt — earning under $25,000). website’s “Divorce and Parenting Research Links” is typical, plus a direct link to the Children’s Rights Council” (hover URL). CRC is pretty big in Indiana… Six years after passing the bar, Ms. Mitchell was on the Executive Committee of Family Law Section of Indiana Bar Assoc., and chaired it in 2005. The articles of incorporation show it’s a 501(c)4 (not “3”) and by address its place of business is another law firm in Noblesville, Indiana: Holt, Fleck & Romini. If the image (showing org.’s purpose) doesn’t show, it’s viewable for free on the site below.

Though only incorporated in winter (February) 2005, by summer (July) 2005, Indiana, “Families Moving Forward”** already had a “Parent Coordination Committee” and presented the following report in this context:

*Note: the Nonprofit to present this was incorporated 2/14/2005, in time for this, 3rd Annual Family Law Summer Institute agenda (see link) doesn’t show anything about parent coordination, although certainly it could’ve happened. Law firm page for Ms. Mitchell notes that she was “Executive Committee of the “Family Law Section” 1994-2005 and its chair in 2004-2005. So it would make sense that her nonprofit would have a good shot at presenting at that summer institute.

I note that at Ms. Mitchell’s office, one of her associates began as Parent Coordinator in 2006.

Another very smart attorney with stellar credits is Amy Stewart (valedictorian of her law class) is president of this nonprofit (FMF): notice also collaborative law emphasis, plus an AFCC affiliation. In 1999 she had an article published on “Covenant Marriage: Legislating Family Values” Good summary of the issues of religiosity in marriage by a UK author, here Actually, it’s a good summary and a timely read of marriage/divorce, and role of rising religiosity (UK/America) in the mix.

But it was a search for “Families Moving Forward, Inc.” that brought her name up.

Here’s Ms. Stewart’s bio (notice “Collaborative Law”); she works at Bingham McHale, LLP, a large firm with locations in 3 Indiana counties. She is a partner.

Amy concentrates her practice in matrimonial and family law matters. She was one of the first Indiana attorneys trained in collaborative law, and she has been instrumental in introducing the approach in Indiana. She has practiced collaborative law since 2007, has attended several conferences of the International Association of Collaborative Professionals,* and has been trained by collaborative law founder Stuart Webb. In addition, Amy also practices traditional litigation.

*Readers probably may not remember, so I’ll remind us. the “IACP” is another incarnation, membership association — out of many — formed by AFCC-type professionals, as you can see by the description:

ACP is the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals, an international community of legal, mental health and financial professionals working in concert to create client-centered processes for resolving conflict.

I probably blogged it, too. I remember looking up the various websites, corporate registrations, etc. Here’s their About Us/History narrative. I notice a good chunk of it (after inspiration by “Stu Webb” in MN) took form in the Northern California family court association nonprofit factor, aka the SF Bay Area, including Oakland (East Bay) and other well-known cities:

In May of 1999, the first annual AICP [=American Institute of Collaborative Professionals] networking forum was held in Oakland, California. The following year, a meeting was held in Chicago to discuss the state of Collaborative legal practice across the country. The nearly 50 practitioners who attended this meeting agreed that AICP should serve as the umbrella organization for our rapidly-growing movement. At the same time, they recognized that since Collaborative Practice was also developing exponentially across Canada, the organization needed a broader, more inclusive name and mission. Thus the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals was born in late 2000, officially changing its name in 2001.

The Collaborative Review has been published continuously since May, 1999. The work begun by initial editors Jennifer Jackson and Pauline Tesler. . .

Jennifer Jackson (FYI, I’ve never met, spoken to, or dealt with her in court) is kind of branded in my mind as having helped start up Kids’ Turn (SF):

FYI — here is another Super Lawyer, high-profile, longstanding success. Her “about” page lists many accomplishments. Notice which comes first; notice also the variety of terms which are basic to the field: I’ll bold them:

About Jennifer Jackson

Before becoming a family lawyer in 1985, Jennifer Jackson was an illustrator and photographer, raising three children.

A LITTLE LOCAL COMMENTARY relating to this Super-Productive/Super Attorney and her many Nonprofits:

I know artists, including photographers and illustrators. It’s not that easy to make a living at; this speaks of either a good prior divorce settlement, (or not marrying) or some substantial education somewhere along the line, undergrad plus law school. That’s quite a set of accomplishments, but I don’t think represents an indigence. See Resume:

BA with Honors in 1966, became family lawyer (passed bar?)

1985, with Professor’s Assistanceships (in law school) on child-related and mediation topics. Maybe I can assume that almost 20 year gap is called “Mom” and “Wife” time.

In 1987, she helped found Kids’ Turn and was simultaneously involved in PTA Board at “Campolindo High School” where her kids probably attended. Campolindo is — well, its site describes it well:

“Located in the hills east of the University of California, Berkeley, Campolindo serves the professionally-oriented and well-educated suburban communities of Moraga and Lafayette. Students, teachers and parents work together to provide a positive climate for learning where mutual respect, trust and esteem are valued. ” . . .”In statewide API (Academic Performance Index) ratings, for the fifth year in a row, both the Acalanes District and Campolindo are ranked in the very top percentiles of all public high schools in California with an API score of 919. Nationally, Campolindo is recognized regularly in Newsweek magazine as one of the “Best High Schools in America”. The Association of Californa School Administrators honored Campolindo’s Principal, Carol Kitchens, as the Secondary Principal of the Year in 2009

This is my way — as is this demographics piechart** of saying, as fantastic as these achievements are for Ms. Jackson — something had her living (presumably) in Moraga around the time she passed the bar — and that’s a privileged community. A neighboring one, Orinda, shows has a 2009 median household of $156K, and more than half the town earning that much, and the largest sector earning over $200K.

To get a general feel for housing in the area — this is my tactful way of saying that until the 1960s, some of these communities did not allow African-American housing loans, or greatly restricted them — read this thoughtful summary of Berkeley, including a lot on demographics and migration.

Essentially, people that might work as professors, or other high-paying jobs in SF or Berkeley (or even Oakland) would then leave those urban areas and commute straight past (on highways like as not) the dangerous and darker-skinned areas, right on back to the suburbs. Just keep this in mind when someone from this area (however s/he got there) is all excited about helping poor kids, single mother or no single mother. And I don’t know specifically that Jennifer Jackson was; although no mention of a husband is made, or the children’s father.

(**scroll down to see race (total African Americans: 166, Hispanic, invisible — they are living elsewhere and working on the lawns and in the retail & domestic sectors no doubt (wikipedia, though, says 7% in 2010) — how few single parent households, and almost NO violent crime). As of 2010, Moraga had a total population of 16,016 people. As of the 2000 census, Moraga was the 79th wealthiest place in the US with a population above 10,000. The median income for a household in the town is $98,080, and the median income for a family is $116,113. Males have a median income of $92,815 versus $51,296 for females.[almost 2:1!!] )

Blending this background of creativity, caring and flexibility with her legal training enhances her practice of family law and expands the options for her clients.

Jennifer believes that a lawyer must be actively involved in her professional community, and that life is about making a difference. Jennifer is one of the founders of Kids’ Turn, a program for separating families begun in San Francisco which has expanded exponentially in size and in quality of service to children and families.

(If you know my blog, you know EXACTLY why and how Kids’ Turn “expanded exponentially in size” — see family law attorneys, evaluators & judges on the board, see access/visitation funds “facilitating” parent education programs. . . . .As to the quality of service? That’s debatable, but as I haven’t sat through any of the classes — except to note they use the word “parental alienation” a lot in stating benefits, i.e., “reduces parental alienation” type claims. I’ll withhold judgment on this, as should others who haven’t !!)

She is one of the founders of the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals and served for eight years as co-editor of its journal, The Collaborative Review. She has had leadership roles in her professional organizations at local, state national and international levels, and is a past president of the Northern California chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers.

Within five years of passing the bar, she is serving as a judge pro tem– how common is that? Or this?

[[This is almost another topic — I’ve footnoted it [VLSP* at bottom of post, a section in itself….]

Expert: Temporary Restraining Order Clinic

Jennifer has been given an “AV” rating by Martindale-Hubbell and has been named one of the top 50 female lawyers (“Super Lawyers”) in Northern California in all areas of practice by Law and Politics Publications for the past five years in a row. Jennifer practices alternative dispute resolution exclusively; she has trained extensively in mediation and collaboration, and is committed to keeping clients out of court and at the negotiating table.

The IACP has created Standards for practitioners, trainers and collaborative practice trainings. It has promulgated Ethical Guidelines for Practitioners, and continues to support excellence in collaborative practice through resources, training curriculum, practice tools, mentoring and a comprehensive website, allowing collaborative practitioners to continue our tradition of sharing and learning from one another.

Where we are going…

Today, the IACP has over 4,000 members from twenty four countries around the world. We are dedicated to educating the public about the Collaborative alternative. We are committed to fostering professional excellence in conflict resolution through Collaborative Practice. We invite you to peruse this site to learn more about IACP, our services and initiatives.

Amy is the past-chair of the Family Law Section of the Indianapolis Bar Association (2003) and is president of Families Moving Forward, Inc., a multi-disciplinary non-profit organization devoted to developing healthy approaches to family transitions.. . .[Law Degree summa cum laude Indiana Univ. School of Law, 1999; admitted to IN bar same year, graduate “with high distinction” in 1986. ]

5 years of work and/or law school, and within 4 more years she’s charing the Family Law Section of Indianapolis (that’s one city, not the whole state’s) Bar Assocation. What a nice nonprofit and what accomplished professionals, and how successful they are. As such, we should believe what they say, especially as the nonprofit “Families Moving Forward, Inc.” is DEVOTED to a HEALTHY APPROACH to “Family transitions.” (typically called divorces or custody matters).

** a name in other states used for purposes such as helping with homelessness, or infants with fetal alcohol syndrome, other issues, here it’s referring to divorce:

FAMILIES MOVING FORWARD, INC., is an interdisciplinary organization of attorneys, mental health providers, accountants, and other professionals committed to improving the process of family transition in Indiana, by reducing conflict and cost, creating healthier outcomes for children, and enhancing the satisfaction of professionals serving families.

(However, notice the articles of incorporation say it’s there to serve the families as well as the professionals serving the families)

This For-Profit group incorporated as below in Indiana, with the address “9000 KEYSTONE CROSSING, STE 600, INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46240 (which is “HuirasLaw,” Wm. E. Huiras, although the Registered Agent is another attorney, Robin Brown Neihaus (LinkedIn)

(the entity filed one report in 2008, file notes, it owes 2010/2011 – perhaps IN is only every 2 years).

Segments from the Indiana 2005 Sample PC report (handbook):

The sample report begins with a situation between father and stepfather which was hostile. Both wanted to coach on Little (10) Joey’s baseball team.

Therapy for both TOGETHER is recommended:

5. Mr. Smith and Mr. Doe should attend counseling sessions together to attempt to resolve their(For example, the mother did not want the father to volunteer on Fridays at school any longer. She maintained that the children were emotional and upset on those mornings and did not want to go to school. The teachers were contacted and reported that the children looked forward to and enjoyed their father’s presence.

AFCC CLAIMS CREDIT FOR HAVING DEVELOPING PARENT COORDINATION:

From their 5-year prospectus:

AFCC Guidelines for Parenting Coordination

In 2003, AFCC President George Czutrin appointed a Task Force to develop Model Standards of Practice for Parenting Coordination, following the first Task Force on Parenting

Coordination that conducted research and published the 2003 Report on Parenting Coordination Implementation Issues. The Task Force determined that the Parenting Coordination process was too new to use the term “Model Standards” and, in May 2005, proposed to the Board of Directors the AFCC Guidelines for Parenting Coordination. The Guidelines passed unanimously and are available on the AFCC Web site at http://www.afccnet.org/resources/standards_practice.asp.

The following new publications have been developed since 2002 while dated products were been eliminated:

• Parenting Coordination: Implementation Issues

There are scholarly articles galore about this. One by matthew Sullivan, Ph.D. (and a parent coordinator) uses the phrase repeatedly in the abstract — but to access the article one-time costs $34 and permanently $155. Needless to say, not many people who have parent coordinators in their lives can afford to read up on it….

“In 1994 the concept of parent coordination was spawned by a concerned group of professionals in California and Colorado who

WHILE PROMOTION EFFORTS TEND TO PHRASE PARENT COORDINATION PASSIVELY (as if a natural development), IN PRIVATE PUBLICATIONS, IT TAKES RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE PROMOTION OF THE FIELD:

AFCC STAYS FOCUSED ON IMPLEMENTING AND PROMOTING PARENT COORDINATION:

And I am going to show you what apparent frauds some of the prime “trainers” are in this field too. But first, let’s look at the upcoming 2012 conference called:

This is an upcoming (Feb. 2012) meeting of the California Chapter of the AFCC. An entire day is dedicated to a workshop on Parenting Coordination, and a secondary one talks about how to get it in there — even if parents are indigent.

Here are the presenters’ bios (please scroll through). Some are more than a page, others short. Notice the types of professionals involved (typical), Judges, Attorneys and Psychologists, Mediators, etc. Some have been around forever (Joan B. Kelly, Dianna Gould-Saltzmann) others seem newer:

Abbas Hadjian, Esquire devotes a substantial part of his family law practice to educating the Farsi‐speaking community on the comparisons between the American and Iranian legal system and recently published “Divorce in California,” which is written in Farsi. He is an expert on Iranian culture and laws.

(from his website, partial description of an amazing background):

Mr. Hadjian was born, educated and lived in Iran until 1980. Between 1959 and 1968 Mr. Hadjian was a professional journalist in Iran, with positions including editor, writer, reporter, translator and commentator in major Iranian publications and news agencies. His profession a journalist required and helped Mr. Hadjian’s foundational understanding of the Iranian legal, social, economical and political structure. Between 1962 and 1966, Mr. Hadjian attended the School of Law, Political Science and Economics in Tehran University. Among others, he received courses in Iranian Constitution, Civil, Family and Probate law, furthering his understanding of the legal, social, economic and political infrastructure of his native country.

Upon graduation. Mr. Hadjian became a political appointee in the Office of the Governor General, Iranian Southern Ports and Islands (Persian Gulf), where he acted as a ranking civil officer in the region until 1978, the year of the Iranian Revolution. As deputy to the Governor General in social and economic affairs, Mr. Hadjian relied heavily on his legal studies and implemented them in real life situations. In 1975, Harvard University accepted him to the renowned Edward S. Mason Program for Public Development on full scholarship, acknowledging five years of Mr. Hadjian’s services in developing the Persian Gulf region as one year of post-graduate studies. He was awarded a Masters Degree in Public Administration

A related site from “Culture Counts.net” (site has three diverse professionals) has a page about fatherhood, the new normal, which “surprisingly” reminds readers about:

Positive Effects of Father Involvement on Children

Children display increased self-confidence.

Better able to deal with frustration and other feelings.

Higher grade point averages.

More likely to mature into compassionate adults.

Paternal emotional responses to sons were associated with a 50% decrease in sons’ expressions of sadness and anxiety from preschool to early school age

Positive Effects of Father Involvement on Men

Helps men reevaluate their priorities and become more caring human beings who are concerned about future generations.

May reduce health-risk behaviors.

Decreases psychological distress as emotional involvement with children acts as a buffer against work-related stress.

Happiness and increased physical activity.

Sense of accomplishment, well-being, and contentment.

Men tend to be more involved with extended family and others in the community.

Over time, fatherhood increases marital stability.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

Here is the rather short blurb of a long-time attorney in California, who in this conference is presenting an all-day workshop on Parenting Coordination:

Leslie Ellen Shear, JD, CFLS, CALS

Ms. Shear is a graduate of UCLA School of Law and admitted to the California Bar in 1976 and maintains her practice in Encino, California. A frequent lecturer in custody matters, she has been involved in a number of high-profile custody cases over the years – most recently, Marriage of LaMusga and Marriage of Seagondollar.

I note she was admitted to the bar fully 20 years before welfare reform and almost as much before VAWA.

These three are going to present on Parenting Coordination — an all-day institute. It must be important:

III. Parenting Coordinators Work With the Most Difficult Family Court Population – Those Most Prone to Assert Grievances and Challenge Decisionmakers

… cases are usually referred to parenting coordination because they are chronically litigious and difficult to manage. These parents have often had several attorneys, evaluators, and mediators — professional hopping and shopping is rampant. Their court files are thick with motions, court appearances, and allegations of wrongdoing by the parents.
Coates, Deutsch et al. (2004) Parenting Coordination for High-Conflict Fami- lies 42 Fam. Ct. Rev. 246, 252

The child custody cases referred to parenting coordinators are the most complex, acrimonious, difficult and demanding cases. Most parents regain their perspective and bearings within two years of separation, and do not need this kind of intensive and ongoing service model. Parents who continue to return to court with enforcement and modification requests after completing co- parenting educational programs, and after a child custody evaluation are can- didates for parenting coordination,

Parents who need a PC intervention are typically a special group for whom the passage of time has not reduced the rage and angry behaviors of at least one if not both parents. The 10–20% of parents who remain in entrenched and high conflict two to three years after separation/divorce are significantly more likely to have severe personality disorders and/or mental illness (Johnston & Roseby, 1997). Understanding the characteristics of parents with severe borderline, dependent, narcissistic, and antisocial personality disorders, why these parents react so strongly to rejection and loss, how the child is used in attempts to re-stabilize their functioning and punish the other parent, and how personality disorders are exacerbated by stress, conflict and the adversarial system will facilitate more effective work with these difficult clients.

+ + + + = = = + + + = = =

[VSLP*]. This footnote comes from a fragment of attorney Jennifer Jackson’s resume, which itself came from a bio of another nonprofit, Families Moving Forward, Inc. in Indiana. I was following up in another nonprofit, “International Association Collaborative Professionals” and I guess you can see about how curious I am about the inter-relationships of various nonprofits.

I looked at the staff. This one caught my attention — because of the specialties, not him personally:

Chris Emley (in 2011, or at least now on the website.)

Chris is a certified family law specialist and a Fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, with 41 years of experience focusing on child custody litigation. He has been included in Best Lawyers in America since 1991. He has helped to govern VLSP since its inception in 1979. He received the State Bar President’s Pro Bono Service Award in 1983, the Legal Assistance Association of California’s Award of Merit in 1989, and two Awards of Merit from The Bar Association of San Francisco (1977 and 2004). He was a BASF board member from 1979 through 1981, and chaired the Lawyer Referral Service Committee. Chris was Vice President of the San Francisco Child Abuse Council, Chairman of the Board of Legal Assistance to the Elderly, and Chairman of the Board of Legal Services for Children, Inc.

There happens to be one pro bono group in the SF Bay area which used to help women leaving violence and eventually in the news (and had I known at the time to check all these 990s, I’d have seen the notation that it specialized in helping NONCustodial, low-income fathers, I’d have realized why this group refused to help so many mothers stuck in the family law system.). The presence of a Certified Family Law Practitioner on the board of VSLP, with his emphasis being on children’s rights, and without question, children in ANY institutional system these days need help and representation, does make me wonder who is helping with women’s rights when it comes to actual mothers who aren’t in jail for killing their batterers (which have some groups advocating) — but actually dealing with the horrors of year after year in a custody battle with a violent or abusive ex, and doing so without even a grasp of how it works, or who pays its bills.

General Comments:

I don’t see anything in VSLP which remotely deals with the situation, and was able to get no actual help (legal representation of any sort, pro bono) in my case either, not past the initial restraining order, and a perfunctory (and NOT in court) attempt to renew it, which I was told would be a non-issue, it’s often granted automatically! No one came to court where I, like many, many other “custodial” mothers after leaving abuse, was blindsided by a prior ex parte movement consolidating renewal with a divorce and custody matter, thus shifting the case into the family law system, where it remained, and where the actual topic of ongoing DV was drowned by the type of talk we see in these realms — psychological states, not literal deeds!

The moral is, every program and every nonprofit has its target clientele. As the target clientele (for keeping in their proper place) in so many federal grants to the states are fathers (when it comes to custody matters), it would make no “sense” for the government to also pay the opposing side, the protective mothers!

[[Interesting program, project of SF Bar: its family law person Chris Emley also on Board of “Legal Services for Children” which (as of 2001) got funding from City & County of SF, SF Dept. of Public Health, and SF Dept. of Children, Youth & Their Families.

Its address seems to be a few doors down from Kids Turn: 1254 Market vs. 1242 Market Street. “Legal Services for Children” (2010) shows no Chris Emley on the Board, but its main purposes are: 1. Guardianship for children wanting it; 2. Helping kids dealing with expulsion and school-related issues; 3. Immigration. . ..It also represents children in foster care and helps support LGBT youth. 200 Volunteer attorneys gave over $1mil worth of their help. The group received over $1 mill. of contrib& grants, and gave $65,000 to a DC nonprofit, National Juvenile Defender Center (EIN# 02060456. On “Foundation Finder” this EIN doesn’t pull up a tax return…..for any year. Nor does a name search! However from NCCSdataweb, I see that it was incorporated in 2002 (legal services for children, in 1975). This “National Juvenile Defender Center” interests me: 2002 income, 0. A 2007 letter from Andrea Weisman, signed DC Dept of Youth Rehab. Services (“DYRS”) (shares address with a Board member of NJDC, Mark Soler, 2002) expresses the serious problems of Youth in Adult Facilities. Weisman and Soler (again, board member of the group which got $65K grant from the West-Coast “Legal Services for Children,” which takes funding from various depts. of SF and its city & county) worked together (1999?) on “No Minor Matter: Children in Maryland’s Jails.” Weisman notes she got a $1.6mil grant from OJJDP. ]]

National Juvenile Defender Center:

2002– income is zero. By 2009 — they are into Technical Training and Assistance. And ExDir. Patricia Puritz as only paid director, gets $134K salary) — and have landed over $5 million of grants, and earning $10K from investment income and have some serious program income in 2010 ($119K= almost (but not quite) enough to pay their own Exec. Director:. Check it out. So why, in the following year (revenues down to $405K — but probably some leftovers, wanna bet?) did a group in SF just grant them $65,000? Or was that a sort of tax equalization between them both. I live in the same state as “Legal Service for Children, Inc.” and we know that our K-12 schools are taking a serious hit? Why should enough money to feed, clothe and house three families in this area for a year, be given to a nonprofit out of DC that just got $5 million the year before?

The National Juvenile Defender Center (NJDC) was created in 1999 to respond to the critical need to build the capacity of the juvenile defense bar and to improve access to counsel and quality of representation for children in the justice system. In 2005, the National Juvenile Defender Center separated from the American Bar Association to become an independent organization. NJDC gives juvenile defense attorneys a more permanent capacity to address practice issues, improve advocacy skills, build partnerships, exchange information, and participate in the national debate over juvenile crime.

They operate 9 US Regional Centers; the California one is in SF and among its projects is:

The eight-state network is coordinated through the National Juvenile Defender Center (NJDC), and engages juvenile defenders, policymakers, judges and other key stakeholders in designing strategies to improve juvenile indigent defense policy and practice. California was chosen as a result of its demonstrated ability to achieve measurable reform on juvenile indigent defense issues. California’s JIDAN work will be centered in the Pacific Juvenile Defender Center.

Much of this relates to the “OJJDP” and the Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act. This is an entirely different category than “Parenting Coordination” through the family law center; it is dealing with things such as the US being the world largest per-capita jailor, that those in jail are disproprotionately minority, that horrible things are happening to youth while in confinement, etc. By comparison, the “Parent Coordinator” issue seems like kids’ play unless one begins to wonder how many of the youth in detention had parents stuck in the family law system, which definitely cuts down on actual parenting time and focus!

Contributions Welcome, and Needed. Thanks!

What I do here: I expose the Systems Design, and the Designers, so Y.O.U. can Show Others, and to notify those playing certain games, "you've been flagged."

Heard of "disruptive technologies?" Disruptive innovations?
Well, this is a disruptive blog. I give people who've already been strung out and stripped down BY the system another place to stand and look at it, and a clear, fairly diagnostic language (vs. pretty logos and moving pictures) to describe it to others. AND, which many don't do, I tell how I found the information; links databases and all.
Despite the blog's appearance, I know what I'm doing! You're looking at long-term leverage, in the hands of the "non-experts," in the public interest, not public funded propaganda to drive business to private pockets. Hence, I'm not afraid to ask:
The formula wasn't complex, but the concept itself was just so devious insidious, parasitic, grandiose, and by now, so baked into the economic, institutional infrastructure, people either don't notice, or, in a common, cowardly, but all too human response they see, and just start denying, or looking for nicer explanations of an ugly truth -- where it's heading, and for lack of nicer, but still honest terms, it's heading towards yet more slavery (and tolerating it) and genocide (and tolerating it).
As a woman, mother, a family court and domestic violence survivor [yes, he was a hitter, and more], who has already 'faced the music' in more ways than I can count, to the best of my ability, I do not do "denial." I also ask the public, what's left of it, to just not go down that Denial Road, and with it lose more of their innate humanity, perception, and ethics. There is another way out, one with a conscience:

Really want system change? Make up your mind to understand government financing -- change yourself first. Find and read your local "CAFR" (government's Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports), a wonderful source of information, with flow chart, descriptions of component or blended government units it's reporting on, and reporting the balances in each fund -- ever heard of a "Balance Sheet"? Looking for this also reveals just how many governmental business entities ARE there? Find them. Read. Think about what you see. What does it mean?

As others have pointed out already-- governments tend to pool their investments, for example, "CALPERS" (essentially created ca. 1931) is the largest "public pension" investing platform around, or at least in the country. Getting started earlier sure helped, then adding players (subscribers) over time ALSO did. In 1985, add "CII" Council on Institutional Investors (members: in 31states and D.C.) (LA Times 1985 article on Calif. Politician (state treasurer, assembly speaker) Unruh whose idea it was for the Council so institutional funds could "flex their muscle"; and push for corporate governance reform. Cii members now control $3 trillion of assets). Point being, government holdings are invested, and when pooled like this, are major clout, and the average person never reads even a single government entity's annual financial reports. (I wasn't aware of them til 2012!)
Governments not only invest their funds in business, they also by legislation, patenting, and protections, set them up to win, or lose. So, "know thy government" is a great place to start. (See blog/see links in the blog).

Really Want Systems Change? [Contributions Welcome & Needed, Cont’d.]

This Absolutely Uncommon Analysis shouldn't be! . . .

Really want system change? Make up your mind to understand government financing -- change yourself first. Find and read your local "CAFR" (government's Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports), a wonderful source of information, with flow chart, descriptions of component or blended government units it's reporting on, and reporting the balances in each fund -- ever heard of a "Balance Sheet"? Looking for this also reveals just how many governmental business entities ARE there? Find them. Read. Think about what you see. What does it mean?

As others have pointed out already-- governments tend to pool their investments, for example, "CALPERS" (essentially created ca. 1931) is the largest "public pension" investing platform around, or at least in the country. Getting started earlier sure helped, then adding players (subscribers) over time ALSO did. In 1985, add "CII" Council on Institutional Investors (members: in 31states and D.C.), (LA Times 1985 article on Calif. Politician (state treasurer, assembly speaker) Unruh whose idea it was for the Council so institutional funds could "flex their muscle"; and push for corporate governance reform. Cii members now control $3 trillion of assets). Point being, government holdings are invested, and when pooled like this, are major clout, and the average person never reads even a single government entity's annual financial reports. (I wasn't aware of them til 2012!)

Governments not only invest their funds in business, they also by legislation, patenting, and protections, set them up to win, or lose. So, "know thy government" is a great place to start. (See blog/see links in the blog).

Find the named funds; who set them up to start with? I found the DV funds in California, how they were split off in 1999 between the DA's office and the DV industry, and guess what? My Congressman and I are going to have a talk REAL soon about case-dumping of dangerous cases into the family law system, where the marriage/fatherhood/access visitation funding sector can have their way with the kids, and the nonabusive parents, and further expand (rather then reduce) welfare loads, for profits to the state. Your legislators votes on budget. Budgets appropriate. Get it?
By the way, every Congressperson, US and state, and I'm told major media gets copies of the relative CAFRs. They just don't really to have that conversation about BUDGET vs. ASSETS which leads to, now WHY are we being taxed, still?
It gets down to ownership of the income-producing assets.
Connect the dots between funds and funders, grants, and grantees. (Blog links show how). Do this for a while, and the lights will start to go on; illuminating another serious problem: the fundamental truth is, a Very Big Lie is Standard Operating Procedure throughout government, especially social services sector. Now what?
A real fork in the road... Now what? Is your Congressperson in on it?Now what?.

Once STOPPED at this point, you cannot travel down both paths and be one traveler. It's either retain that humanity, sensitivity to truth, or lose it.

Either look down that less-traveled road, Or, do nothing much, and just sign over the decision-making process to others.
AFTER ALL, it's not as though cloud-based software, combined with social service programming through welfare and child support systems to continue dumbing down people and smartening up robots! (I kid you not -- see "Neurala, Inc. and Brains for Bots(tm)" And corporate connections between the two! (stay tuned for the post)....
Know how I found that? Looking at a tax return, looking up the Chief Operating Officer. AND his Board Relationships. Including this one (talk about putting together a team with international connections!!). The company is a federal contractor, too. Did my doing that take artificial intelligence, was it "rocket science?" (Not hardly!) This NONPROFIT is an HHS grantee and contractor founded in 1974, Ford Foundation capital + Federal agencies, and is the "evaluation and testing" arm of many Responsible Fatherhood projects ("Fragile Families" and the whole 9 yards), to justify the social policies that PRWORA (1996 Budget Act, "Welfare Reform") further enabled by dedicating millions, and enabling "Block Grants to the States" via "TANF." We are granting millionaire nonprofits more millions, WHY, again??? (while cutting funds for FOOD?). For more info, read my blog!
It's simpler than it sounds IF you look. Most, just won't. How about you?

["Stopping by Snowy Woods on a Snowy Evening." Observe from a distance, not in the thick of it, consider (I have). And there are miles to go before I sleep, too. If you have stopped and seen, remember to stop back on the way out, and feed the blogger. See "strung out and stripped down" phrase, above. Thanks!

Let’s Get Honest. There’s Still No Excuse. But…

[This text widget added Feb. 2014]. For over twenty years I have been dealing personally, first with domestic assault and battery, a.k.a. violence in the home, then by witnessing how ALL facets of the system collectively keep "Abuse Awareness" in the public's face and on-line, while locally, telling live clients in imminent danger, asking for help for the most part, go away and shut up. Or, when such people look for some agency with the words "domestic violence" or "prevent family abuse," or related sound-bytes on their websites, to show up (sometimes pay for) a class to develop relationship skills for handling one's: stalker, batterer, or the parent that threatened to, or just did, kidnap the kids. The same crowd (generic) also stay positioned for Technical Assistance and Training -- not real-time help. It's probably good they are often on the conference trail; if they stuck around home more, the word might get out locally exactly what "T&TA" means. My translation? "Need Help? Go Away! It's Not Our Job. We Just Train the Trainers. We Consult. Dial in for the Webinar."" (etc)

So, what can be done then, meaning, by "us," (we, the people, the public, the huddled masses, or working millions) other than suffering nobly and dying dramatically, dealing with ongoing trauma, or de-sensitizing ourselves to the level of violence and our own government institutions' collective decisions to make business models out of the human tendency to slap others around, bully, lie, steal, terrorize, kidnap and [do things that is normally for privileged civil servants -- for example, in the military, the courts, the social services, an law enforcement, etc. -- and the private security forces for certain multinational corporations]].
We cannot help ourselves by taking the duties of law enforcement into our hands, physically -- that's illegal an dangerous! However I believe there is a way the public CAN help, a way to put a stop to free-fall exploitation, without adding to the ongoing stream of bloodshed (that's no exaggeration) or multiplying marginalized populations (i.e., the poor, those on social services).
Individually first, and to each other, "the public" may still have some leverage in examining these TnTA "Go-Away! groups that are more interested in protecting their interests than our children (OR, us).
That leverage is in CHANGING how we interact with our own government and whether we continue to feed this system through taxes, fees-for-services, mis-understanding what it's "there" for at this point in time (2014). I'm talking about the cognitive dissonance that comes from taking agencies, nonprofits, and civil servants at face value, instead of, as any good shareholder or investor would, understand the importance of reading the reports of that which we've invested in.
The public can't read [enough of the] reports of private financing -- but we CAN of government, and we can of nonprofit sector. I only did because I demanded answers why I should be terrorized first, in my home, second in the community, and why, when law enforcement shoots to kill when they could've tasered, we should call upon them for protection from violence. When they won't enforce orders, then why are the orders issued to start with? Are our lives just some kind of game?
Paying better attention to the infrastructure, and fiscal operations (of governments and nonprofits that do business with them) explains the bread-and-circuses use of the internet as opposed to, developing some skills to understand a little infrastructure.
So, obviously, I have not gone away completely, or shut up, and as this blog shows, I have been taking notes on where the money is (as that seems to be the primary interest of the service-providers, not the people being served), and finding and reading tax returns, too.

The “Technical Assistance and Training” Excuse

My other Gravatar (identical photo, below) leads to a 1992! discussion of supervised visitation; this one to a Profile narrative and other key blogs on this subject.
Re:why "We can't HEAR you" in situations involving domestic violence (at the prosecution level) further enables "We're Training the Trainers to Raise Awareness about DV" at the nonprofit and DV industry level. Let's talk about who already knew that the VAWA grants faucet (1994ff) was matched, more than equally by a "Marriage/ Fatherhood" promotion faucet (both, federal and private combined), and have collaborated to split that pie, while keeping the public in the dark, which is how the public prefers to be kept about such matters...
However this California criminal defense attorney's explanation that:
"Domestic Battery" [Penal Code 243(e)1] is the least serious, Aggravated Battery [243(d)] is a Wobbler" (misdemeanor or felony). Yes, you can receive stitches, broken bones, or a concussion, and have it called misdemeanor ("say, what??"). Also, Corporal Injury on a Spouse, Cohabitant, or Fellow Parent [273.5] is per this attorney, a wobbler too. Sounds very wobbly, right? Also note:

What sort of penalties am I facing if I am convicted of PC 243(e)(1) Domestic Battery?
If you are convicted of 243(e)(1), you may face the following penalties: Up to 1 year in county jail;
Up to a $2,000 fine; Informal or “summary” probation for up to 3 years.If probation is granted, which is typical, the court will require you to complete a minimum 1-year Batterer’s Program. The court may also require, in lieu of a $2,000 fine, You pay a maximum of $5,000 to a Battered Women’s Shelter, and/or You pay restitution to the accuser for reasonably incurred expenses as a result of this crime, including medical expenses."

Either way, someone is going into a program, although it sounds very wobbly, no matter how it happens. What most do -- when children are involved -- is attempt to get it promptly into the local conciliation court where it becomes a relationship problem ,and services can be ordered, keeping the local DA's hands clear for such things as, stumping for more funds (grants) for more One-Stop-Justice-shops [[=my 6/2010 blog on this]] (family justice centers [scroll down to see]. Actually the first was started by a City Attorney, son of an evangelistic father [search "Gwinn" here], and who grew up on a Christian conference camp center [page 2, here/or hover cursor]). Whether it's Southern or Northern California, it seems to me the religious sector is keeping the justice programs AND DA's offices "all in the family," in this case a Catholic one, leaving people fleeing religiously rationalized, enabled, and covered-up spousal abuse, in truth, nowhere to run. At every turn, we are told to go away and just work it out. So, when "things happen" these officials then explain to distraught parents [been there more than once] why crimes involving CHILDREN, and a mother and a father, just aren't crimes [translation:-why should we prosecute when there's a family court staffed by people who on the faith-based, family and marriage/fatherhood funding streams nearby? What's in it for us?. Go away -- we're busy strengthening the domestic violence field, and Connecting the Dots].
Hunting for, Gathering, and Reporting the Truth...
...is a public interest cause. If it rings true, and you want this NOT to get buried (again), pls. click and help. Suggested minimum $20. The stakes are always high when truth [in these matters especially] is at risk.
Truth also needs to be understood; that takes knowing the context, which also takes TIME.

It's taken a very long time, but I have also been. Connecting the Dots, that is. Question: If DV is not a crime or at least not really to be prosecuted, if possible, then what were all the DV professionals doing the whole time, and why?

Hmmm... They have been figuring out how to reclassify the crimes as a treatment opportunity (merging organizations), setting up their various nonprofits in mutual-interest, professional providers' alliances (connecting those dots, 2012).
Something tells me, despite the verbiage, the plan is NOT to stop, end, prevent, [or any other verb implying cessation, or prosecution] domestic violence, family violence, or child abuse, but simply to set up professions to handle the constant inflow of new customers, that is, the survivors at least. There's no longer even a pretense that this isn't a specialized professional field, although the pretense is kept up, from the laws still on the Penal Code that it's a crime, at least a "wobbler."
"Enhancing Leadership Programs for the Next Generation" The future of the movement to end DV [Futures Without Violence?] depends on our ability to successfully invest in young leaders. [from a nonprofit dedicated to training, "Center for Relationship Abuse Awareness, in Santa Clara County, [Charity #132625 Delinquent: Search here]

While each [District Attorney] had his or her own style and approach to leadership of the office, the reputation of that office has remained one of heavy handedness when it comes to filing charges. Commit a crime in Santa Clara County and there will be a very tough response from the district attorney's office.
~ ~ ~
So how is it that these four San Jose State students were charged, not with felonies, but with misdemeanors for conduct that, if proven to be true, was racist, assaultive, and ongoing? ~ ~ ~...A hate crime is a criminal act that causes physical injury, emotional suffering or property damage which is motivated by the victim's race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, physical or mental disability. A felony is a serious criminal offense punishable by confinement in state prison; a misdemeanor is a less serious crime punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year. ~ ~ ~What is the message that these misdemeanor charges send to the accused? Bully, intimidate, and racially torment your African American roommate and it's not really that serious. If the allegations are true, these sadly misguided young men, as well as other students who might be tempted to behave in this fashion, are in need of "felony" wake-up calls..
Precisely. All I want to point out is -- the list of "hate" crimes of the same nature, with the same consequences, IF the word "sex" referring to one's gender (male, or not-male//See U.S. Congress!) was included, would up-end the justice system and economy.

The FBI definition again verifies: Perpetrate a criminal offense against person or property to someone because of his or her: race, religion, disability, ethnic identity or sexual orientation, and it's a hate crime:

Investigating hate crime is the number one priority of our Civil Rights Program. Why? Not only because hate crime has a devastating impact on families and communities, but also because groups that preach hatred and intolerance plant the seeds of terrorism here in our country.

Defining a Hate Crime

A hate crime is a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias

What the Family Court system and its environs is telling us (all):

"But, do the same any or all of the above to a woman because she's a woman -- and it's business as usual. "

So -- IS there an excuse for domestic violence? In my opinion, no. In reality, in practice, and institutionalized -- yes, and no end of excuses; in fact nothing BUT excuses, plus a lot of talk about reaching out, preventing engaging (name your population) and sponsoring more media campaigns. Futures Without Violence is now 100% owner of a real estate "Inc" which owns property in the SF Praesidio and is dealing with figures in the $40million++, let's talk about being "tapped in" to primary sources ($7.5 million endowment from the Ford Foundation, for a global display center and conference room, apparently this is necessary to earn the public's respect for any public policy...). The victims they're ignoring, and their feedbacks (not just mine) can "go jump in the lake," apparently.

So I recommend focusing instead on ways to get those of us IN such situations, but still in the family court system (years later) OUT of that situation. As the system is designed (like abusers know) to prevent access to funds permitting exit, and/or hunt down people who flee, just now the best solution I can think of, as a survivor, is ways to persuade the public NOT that "mothers are people too" but that it's in their best interest to dismantle the system. After over 20 years of dealing with exactly this kind of hate and because I was first, a woman (in a marriage), and an educated woman; second, a single mother by choice NOT in the same marriage, I'm fed up with having everything BUT pervasive violence against women in the USA THROUGH THE FAMILY COURTS, not treated as what it is -- ongoing terrorism based on gender, beyond race and to a degree beyond socioeconomic profile.
In practice, currently, the words "domestic violence" means "Give me my next VAWA grant" and at this point, not much more. And yet women are still being killed, locally, and brutally. Men are also killing each other, and adding to this, there are the times law enforcement shoot to kill also. However, what about the child support agency's "compromise of arrears" programs, which women entering the courts are NOT told about going in, based on gender, reunification of families, and which also tell us: A debt to the mother of your children (if you're the father and have been in the custody system long enough) is not a real debt either? This is essentially dishonest. Before you CS-paying men get angry (or your new women), realize I have also a blog called "boycottchildsupport" and check it out, too. I'm serious about it, although I'm still owed thousands by the father of our children, and also need this for survival, although it's not coming. This country is not serious about actually stopping any kind of violence. It's serious about keeping the funding coming for systems of population control for when it gets REALLY violent. "IMHO."

Let’s Get Honest – There’s No Excuse!

(Sigh). I've blogging here for four years, loved the learning, but the material is pretty damn disturbing, and has made an activist [=/= feminist, though] out of me, a domestic violence survivor who has been fighting shell-shock, and developing navigational skills after having like many (women) got children and self OUT of a very violent (religious abuse) marriage, some distance but weekly visitation from the start. ... No sooner were we independent, than the blowback from first relatives, who I could resist, and family courts, who I could not, particularly having been dropped off clueless by the nonprofit DV group which, to their credit, at least initially saved four lives, the war became quickly economic. I was clueless to look OUTSIDE courtroom and its personnel to 1996 PROWRA-related Federal grants to the States to promote marriage, fatherhood, abstinence, and increased noncustodial parenting time ("access/visitation"), targeted AT the courtrooms.
This Blog is so Others are not clueless, distracted, and consequently defenseless. It removes the "clueless" excuse and, as has been done to the parents (both genders), provides tools to change-up the tired old conversation: Who's more victimized, Moms or Dad? Answer is, neither -- it's the public.
By 2009 when I ended up finally without ANY real contact with my own kids, and broke from years of fighting to protect, enforce child support, retain a functional work life and at a certain point, avert a threatened kidnapping and years beyond, "something ain't right, here." I dropped all the well-meaning advice from, as it turns out, several advocacy groups in my area -- checked out NAFCJ.net about the grants, fact-checked if the statements were reasonable (which, FYI took less than one week....) and took off blogging.
Re: Kidnapping: As it turned out, law enforcement enabled this and dumped the case back for another round in the courts.
When court forms now have check-marks for felony crimes, i.e., "child-stealing" is a mark on a mediation form! [I didn't need a check-mark to report the event, however said mediator was strangely uninterested anyhow...and chalked one up for the HHS/OCSE Access-Visitation (Fatherhood Promotion) crowd, custody switch, child support arrears compromise (immediately) worklife into a tailspin and mom in trauma, more business for the courts so they can conference about the Clear and Present Danger of overcrowding, and not enough resources for them, develop tactics to spin us even faster through the doors into services, and justify more funding. In this equation, EVERY Custody-Switch from non-abusing, working, primary caretaker mother = "Good." ]
So, we have a definition/jurisdiction issue. But some groups prefer the more (financially rewarding) batterers intervention and domestic violence recognition "Technical Assistance and Training" approach.... as if there were no courts such as these, or judicial-membership nonprofits driving business to and taking business from them.
I don't believe in obedience training for sociopaths (they're experts at inflicting it on others, it's a lifestyle) who have injured or threatened to kill others, but apparently it's big business and public policy.
So, currently I'm ready to dismantle!! (defund) this unjust system, and teach others how to, and why: understanding the why comes from a basic understanding the system and its parts.
If you'd like to help, PLEASE DO!
The people who understand the system most but often can't report properly because they are for years in survival mode, a major onslaught to normal income-producing activities. Alternately, children are pingponged around, making planning schedules impossible for the custodial parent, that is, inbetween court hearings. There is a two-track tier (has money, doesn't have money), but after 1996, BOTH tracks can avail themselves of federal funding towards programs designed to harass and/or extort the other parent (if the child support system hasn't already done it). Meanwhile, apparently the press continues to spin the mounting roadkill (people die around this) as "estranged" or "custody battle" when in fact, often threats to kill preceded it, but co-parenting was still ordered. For some, it is a true catch-22, and a very long one. I'm one of those "some."
Discovering whose (insane) idea this was, and developing some research skills on court-connected corps and their owners (often court employees, like JUDGES....) is empowering and at least alleviates the confusion factor -- although it doesn't get one's kids back, it is a solid, versus dead-end, route to collective resistance to this outrageous, tumultuous (the tumult is planned, engineered, and produces those very profits) public burden. When the scope is considered, I believe the eventual target population is not just single (mothers), but the public. Stay tuned, or, I have nearly 600 posts to date and resources, too.

New Here? Want Roadmap with some Chronology, Links to Supporting Info? {Here’s a Glossary of Issues & Orgs.}

Recent posts selecting some Media/Library Uploads and summarizing them. Note, throughout hover cursor over the link for excerpts. This table combines links, connecting narrative, and often a bit more visible if you hover (place, but do not press down to click through to the other website), your device's cursor over the links. These take time to insert, and are there because I feel the summary is important, and/or because face it, people update websites, and the information may be moved, or deleted.
Look and See/Show and Tell (Selected Media/Library Exhibits) (Plus some narrative of course). Nov. 11, 2013. Example: Center for Children & Youth Justice (Washington state). I have blogged (use search). MacArthur is focusing on the juvenile system, pushing diversion vs. incarceration. See here, note the Kids For Cash Luzerne County (PA) case prominent.
Media/Library Uploads - the Context. Also Nov. 11, 2013. See orange square titled "Archipelago Parts (of this system)" and other tables explaining when Bankrupt isn't (Scranton, PA), plus other, more experienced economists explaining how a Budget isn't Accumulated Assets and other Financial Lie-Detector Tools.
That's major relevancy payload delivery, if you're paying sustained attention. Principles are explained, of course it takes examples to understand them.
Rapid Expansion of AOC and CFCCs (Get the sense of the Flow) (Nov. 5, 2013). I set out 8 points (summary basics/hover) on the courts, some FAQs, and remind us to keep an eye on the various "Centers for Families and Children in the Courts," whether in Baltimore at a Law School.....or .... in San Francisco, under the Judicial Council's Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) [I see California's CFCC is also listed in the John D and Catherine T MacArthur Foundation-supported "Models for Change" directory?? This tells us that that particular Judicial Council/AOC/CFCC office is considered a "Systems Change Model" wanted by, for example, certain philanthropies and other interests].

3 classic change models[=hover. Lewin Unfreeze,Change,Refreeze; McKinsey 7-step, Kotter 8-Step. Which one are AFCC et al. using to expand conciliation court influence?].. FYI, in war, and also in abusive relationships, change tactics are also used. It's good to know what they are and when in operation!

MacArthur-funded "Models for Change: See 8/15/2013 post "Private Wealth Acquisition/Disposition: Bankers Life (1879) MacArthur Foundation (pre-1978)". This is PRIVATELY controlled money dominating court programs. You'll see ("left-lurching") MacArthur Foundation, for example, pouring money into the civil-servant-membership nonprofits (but with connections to statewide influence, preferably) causes, so they can practice on an entire state at a time.. This is top-down system change, and that it's top-down is absolutely intentional.

Like I continue to say -- look more closely at the administrative sector. The right-wing does this too. Some of the wealth acquired IS acquired by keeping it under private, family control. Always an interesting study to see where it came from originally.
[Continued on Post "New Here?" 2/24/2014]. RECOMMENDED READ...
[this widget "outsourced" to a blog post, plus some]...

I'll bet this can be stopped. But not alone, and not without organization, and documentation! Any ideas how??

To Support (and visually upgrade!) This “Uncommon Analysis”

Want to appreciate or support my four years of Consistent Writing; over 580 posts, and a website and posts [not to mention sidebar, and its "widgets"!!]] literally loaded with links?

Whether you want it parsed and outlined, or in documented rant form, it will be strategically different, scratch-your-head "Huh?!?" or deeply disturbing "What-the-????" and, in the long run, actionable (like, how can we stop funding the foolishness) information.

The average post is 5,000-10,000+ words (including quotations), results from ongoing, original connect-the-dots investigations and analysis, while referring readers to others who've done their own research under hard conditions, including court-created poverty, trauma, and even sometimes jail (see Richard Fine).
Basically, I saw a gap in informed coverage for not just women, but specifically mothers, and stepped in to fill and blog it and point to others' analysis who'd been inappropriately dropped by the roadside. The gap was the connection between federal policy, private nonprofit providers, and the local courthouse. I also felt that the gender wars (both sides) had been exploited by "carpet-bagging" interests as if these interests were neutral, when they were not. I also knew from experience that trauma AND confusion makes one easier to manipulate, while relevant information (and knowing how to get it) are antidotes. Another nonsectarian approach was definitely needed.
The blog should (complete with sarcasm) should help some laugh at the lunacy, then I hope "wake the hell up!" about what public money is being used for, and clearly identify the PUBLIC danger which the PRIVAT-ization of government [2001, see p. 16 on "Nonprofits") represents. In this, the family courts' consistently self-congratulating, "problem-solving" model is a significant, and well-heeled part. (see "The Mediation Miracle," as told by a judge; p. 16/2006). The same groups pushing for no-fault divorce (under "irreconciliable differences") also pushed for conciliation courts -- does that sound rational? Was there another motive? Or was it to cause confusion over what is, and is not, a crime, and in that confusion, expand and engage behavioral health services?

So, this blog provides an alternate framework for some of the toughest issues of our time; life and death issues, social issues, and economic issues that get to the heart of, what IS government, and where do I stand in relationship to it?

It is what I wish someone had provided for my children, their father, and me before I set a single foot in, or responded to a single pleading, in the family court venue. Had I known it, I would've fought harder to get the case dismissed upfront, just as anyone being kidnapped should fight (if they are caught unawares) hardest right at the start, for the best results.
Regarding donations -- any level of assistance will help, whether to upgrade the platform slightly (addressing formatting issues), add some functionality, or condensing the information as an aid to other forms of presenting it....or to help me to survive to blog again another day. If it's not yet understood HOW the family court system effectively (and I believe intentionally) functions to keep at least one out of every two parents in marginalized "economic survival mode" year after year, than it's simply not understood, and should be, as these people live in MOST communities today.

I wrote on behalf of and knowing from experience that the people who needed this information the most could afford it the least; they were in survival mode year after year and often facing the challenge of their lifetimes (retaining contact, or re-gaining contact with their own children). As was I.

Learning this material changed and empowered me, not in the case (it came too late for that), but as a human being. Some feedback has included (women, in particular) saying it prevented them from going crazy. Basic Truth has a way of doing that.
I feel responsible to get the information into a form to document of a system in rapid change...a slice of history from a "user" perspective on these systems ... and which won't be buried (as social media and the internet changes) as the original material from the 1990s was.

This groundwork has been done, and I can't continue the work for free. Your donations will help consolidate results into better visual format and they will also help me, the blogger to finalize this project, and still survive personally. Moreover, if they do NOT come in, then I will have a free assessment of its current perceived worth (other than what individuals have said, including THANK YOU!), at this time.

Teaching/PR Goals for Parents and Public Include: [Warning: This part will offend some people, but it's a Public Interest part]

Asking the FNAQs (Frequently Not Asked Questions), and noticing who didn't ask them, which is relevant

A straightfoward primer on how people can better research their own cases.

Eventually, and in the public's fiscal interest, starting a movement to eliminate some over-valued and absolutely over-billed professional niches (see blog for more details): -- Supervised Visitation Monitors -- federally supported nonprofits whose goal is to put yet more GALS with conflict of interest relationships who aren't protecting children anyhow into more children's lives (NACC-- see Child Custody Agenda) ; grants-grabbing fathers rights/DV advocates (collaborating apart from their future clients) Batterers Intervention Providers, court-connected cronies, and any and all under-monitored, specialized hybrid courts whose ultimate real (and unacknowledged) goal is to order more services, while delivering less of what the average person would recognize as "justice."

Others have already researched and shown that the funds are made up-front in the training for these professions, and sustained by federal grants from both HHS and DOJ sectors.
Providers have at times been caught in fraud. Supervised Visitation in particular has been used to punish the nonabusive parent (not the purpose under which it was sold to the public), while "Batterers Intervention Program" serves to diminish, when it has occurred, the concept of domestic violence (battering) as an actual crime, instead attempt to reform (treat) the perpetrator. Whether or not these trainings actually work, the conferences, collaborations, forming more statewide nonprofits, and funding continues -- funding that perhaps might be better given to the household of whoever was battered, which it could definitely help.
These professions were lobbied for, have nonprofit coalitions to promote and train others for (i.e., certification to enter the franchise),and at times are even run by people who also at times also control the public grants which support the services, all of which has been documented since at least 1999. I found some in 2013, California, recently (see "Comments" [by SystemicAnalysis] ). Yet they continue to operate.
Just imagine -- with ALL that money saved, and fewer loopholes for fraud and theft of public funds (which has been identified year after year), why not have public money used to upgrade and fact-check that HHS grants database, "TAGGS" so we know where at least HHS public funds are going. Or, why not promote rather than "responsible fatherhood" (a nebulous and subjective term with clear religious connotations, varying by the religion) -- something objectively useful to all Responsible Citizens -- like how to read a governmental "CAFR" [that was a link to State of Washington's 2012 CAFR] and find out what funds are for which purposes.. and a ...or a counterpoint to how broke the local courts, schools, parks, etc. are (or, are not), and an organized and coherent window into the balance sheets describing the business of government itself. (I also began to blog at "Cold,Hard.Fact$").

I took that research and reporting to a different level and form, adding grants research insight into various advocacy groups and more, from the corporate and nonprofit analysis angle. There are also "how-to" pages such as ("Looking Up a Nonprofit"). Above all, as people continue to experience extreme distress around this issue, I wish them to know "it's not all in your head" -- and there really is a substantial problem. BUT, not to just accept pre-fab or spoonfed solutions: Develop your own understanding and your own voices.

Any donations will more likely go into l consolidating and organizing this material. I do not want to duplicate the typical downloadable Technical Assistance and Training model. I just want to get the word out!

I am a mother, a veteran of the family court wars and years of domestic violence (religious) during marriage; and as a result of saying "No!" to further abuse after separation, have (like many) suffered loss upon loss while consciously becoming a resource on these issues, along with some courageous writers who follow the financial trail.
While I network, I also investigate and have developed an independent voice and viewpoint on these matters to counter the emotionalism, and/or "tell your story" drama, which does NOT help move a traumatized person into a psychologically stable position. It also doesn't help his or her custody case. I am not "PTSD-free" which will be evident in the blog. Who is, after years in the court after years of violence in the home?
But that doesn't invalidate the content -- which comes with links, quotes, and footprints for anyone else who wishes to look things up.
I am not a nonprofit; any donations accepted will help get information into better format (i.e., upgrade and organize the website), and help this particular blogger (me) survive. Former and even traditional professions are impossible with the ongoing open court cases (plural) and unresolved issues (to this date) with family members. Suggested amounts: $10-$25 if you are a parent struggling with the courts and can afford it, $25 or more if you are able.

I have several buttons (same link) here because I tend to "run my mouth" in attempt to cover all bases.

Any amount received with thanks -- a tiny % I believe is taken (from amount submitted) with the donate process.
Thank you in advance!

PMA Blog "About" states:
"Janice along with Lundy Bancroft co-founded Protective Mothers Alliance International in April of 2009. *** Since then PMA has acquired more than 50 state chapter leaders in 30 states and several countries world wide. They have started a PMA blog talk radio show dealing with the many issues that involve the continued abuse by fathers through the family court system. Featured guests on the blog talk radio show are professional advocates in the movement** with a special spot light on giving protective mothers a platform to tell their story.

[[;**I believe Mr. Bancroft, wherever he is these days, calls it the mothers' movements, when not schmoozing, fraternizing and inspiring those guys from the fathers' movement. Does Janice know? Does she approve?]]

[[Finally found it -- NOT anywhere on the PMA actual site (and I sure went looking, too) -- but in 2009 under Lundy's BLOG called "healing and hope." Look an early -- June, 16, 2009 -- post, "Introducing the Protective Mothers' Alliance."

Guess where checks can be (or at least then were) made out to, to support the brand-new PMA? CPPA!

More information about the Protective Mothers Alliance is available at my website, LundyBancroft.com, including our mission statement and principles, with an explanation of how you can start a group in your area and how to reach us. PMA is open to protective mothers and their allies. We have specific projects for children who were harmed by the actions of family courts when they were growing up, called "Hear Us Now," and for men who want to be active for justice for protective mothers, called "Fathers and Step-Fathers for Protective Parenting".
Mothers themselves will be the key leading force in bringing about safety for women and children post-separation##, and in changing the way family courts handle child custody disputes involving abusers. PMA looks forward to your support. Contributions can be made out to "California Protective Parents Association" (our fiscal sponsor) with "Protective Mothers Alliance" written on the memo line, and sent to CPPA, P.O. Box 15284, Sacramento, CA 95815-0284.

###except when the audience is men, in which case, it's men who are going to be the leading force, apparently....

OK, let's get this straight: PMA is a donor-directed "fund" of CPPA (which has no money -- see below, or look yourself). However, to learn MORE about PMA, go to lundybancroft.com (which I have just done, site ends notably *.COM, "Prevention, Response and Healing for Domestic Abuse [not "violence"?] and Child Maltreatment [not abuse?]" and see he has been running healing retreats for women, "The Life That Awaits You: Healing after an Abusive Relationship," led by (yours truly, LB) Retreat fee, incl. meals and lodging: " $385- $460, sliding scale. Maximum size 22 people."
Resources for the "Male Allies" includes the multi-million-dollar SF nonprofit "Family Violence Prevention Fund" obviously this website hasn't been updated much since 2010, when they got a new name.

[To my shame, I didn't find the CPPA connection until Nov. 2013, I was distracted by the "Florida" location of Ms. Janice...not that this wasn't possibly intentional. The phone contact (941-822-5592) listed is from Sarasota, FL it seems. Here's another "tell your story disaster story site providing that #... It WAS, sounds like, a disaster story...It's from a California chapter of PMA about a Michigan custody case. Hover cursor or click to read the PMA salespitches (plural) at the bottom of the report.

I'm just wondering how it's possible to have so many chapters, donations available for a Florida-Telephone# (but not registered as itself to do business in Florida) to PMA, which is actually advertising for a *.com for Mr. Bancroft. How many other "not really incorporated" alliances, and how much of the donations and fees for PMA are run through CPPA, if any, then? Or is CPPA simply the networking connection for these sales connections?]

C2178228 10/06/1999 ACTIVE CALIFORNIA PROTECTIVE PARENTS ASSOCIATION KAREN ANDERSON
Charity# 114556 (Calif) EIN# 943341470. This organization is hardly funded -- it's not shown over $25K (revenues) except years 2002, 2003, 2004 (for which NO RRFs are showing as there should be). No tax returns for those more prosperous years either, only for 2009, 2010, none for 2011. The RRF for year 2010-2011 is signed by Connie Valentine, Fiscal Officer.
The only tax return showing with SOME information (about what they do, although this organization is well-known, and well-loved, to many noncustodial and/or battered mothers), statement 3 (Program service accomplishments):

NOT MENTIONED ON THEIR TAX RETURNS (though known to many mothers) -- that CPPA is along with DVLEAP and "National Court Watch" a co-sponsor (at least now, 2013) of "Battered Mother's Custody Conference" (existed 2003-2013, and exceptionally notable for suppressing overall information about -- what I and some others blog and write on, and had to because CPPA and their many friends wouldn't listen to!!! CPPA leadership often on the podium at BMCC, it seems....

One major attraction CPPA is to many trainers and advocacy groups appears to be the collection and assembly of email lists of distressed parents (particularly mothers) and then sending out of multiple alerts telling them what to do, and who to blurt the story to, which rally to attend, etc. etc.

Back to what the "PMA" blogsite tells us, not including who's their fiscal agent, or at least was originally!

Janice and Lundy have started a PMA bi-monthly news letter which is another vehicle for education and exposure about family court corruption. Janice continues to move forward full force in shining the light on the truth about the many problems that children and protective mothers face in family court."

Sure. Except about the things I've been blogging on since 2009, which I know Janice also knows about (I've told her, and a number of the converts / recruits/ recruiters,Chapter Leaders excuse me, members of this "tight team for change." That includes sending charts of TAGGS, etc., too. See 10/19/2010 post , " "My High Conflict with Promoting National Alliances" -- apparently the Squabbling had already begun then" (hover cursor for comments), and on there a link and comments about (and on) the TimesUp! post "Protective Mothers' Movement Needs Unity" (Barry Goldstein 10/2010). Then, he wrote: "A few short years ago, the protective mothers' movement consisted only of many protective mothers victimized by a broken custody court system and a few professionals willing to risk their careers or at least their earning capacity to help them. This was the state of our movement when Mo Hannah started the Battered Mothers Custody Conference."

WHOSE movement???
...It is easy to feel discouraged when we continue to hear the kinds of tragic miscarriages of justice ... safe, protective mothers are denied any meaningful relationship with their children based on the outdated and discredited practices routinely used by custody courts and biased professionals..." [yes, with Mr. Goldstein it's always, they need better practices (see our new book, here?) and it's never the access/visitation grants or anything to do with federal incentives, and all that...."The NCADV created a child custody track at its recent national conference, provided a plenary session devoted to child custody issues and have done everything we have asked" [yep. I'll bet they didn't ask to stop those grants, either!!] ". . . .after 27 years of working against domestic violence, I believe I may have a unique experience and perspective that could be helpful in avoiding divisions that can only help abuser groups."

(my comment there was deleted, so I put one back in...)

Well, given this new information, I"m going to hazard a guess that actually PMA is more likely, as well as and along with CPPA, a vehicle for the distribution of private, court-related information from women with OPEN custody cases, and a way to potentially, given the cross-associations, get that information into the hands of the opposing side. POTENTIALLY, is all I'm saying. Could be way off there. Or right-on. Who's to say?

So, speaking of the above, and adding to all this peacefulness and let's get along, healing, hopeful, nice stuff -- let's add to the mix a bit of "to the contrary" material from:
one former battered mother who lost contact with her daughter through this system with, God bless her, a won't-stop loudmouth (Claudine Dombrowski) and social media skills, and responds to her own excommunication (within two days, looks like) in Reply to Lundy Bancroft. Change is Here. Lead, Follow, or Get out of the Way. Human Rights. Which, FYI inspired the lookup that found this stuff and inspired the post. We all have our different styles, but Mr. Bancroft, unbattered and not a mother, lecturing Claudine Dombrowski, badly battered, and lost custody of her daughter, on her TONE? No can do. I went to respond, look up, and found Santa Clara activities, above... But last summer, Claudine wrote: (excerpts)

. . .
Lundy Bancroft was like the only source for moms like me. the criminal injustices to myself and my daughter it made no sense, Bancroft gave validation, why does he do that, the batterer as parent, it was all we had. we (the mothers) terrified, ordered by the courts via the abuser and the new found court whores to remain silent, to take the beatings to take blame for everything and even things that did not happen. maddening
"I lost my child. Who helped me? No one. Did Bancroft help? no. Did NOW help? no Did DV orgs help? no.
Who did help?? MOTHERS. Mothers like myself, living in fear, jumping through impossible hoops to just Hold our chil;d again to just hold safely our only mission, our children."

"Lundy is a psych. and we all now are beginning to learn the damages done by the psych industry.

Lundy as a psych elected to be paid by the county to TREAT batterers, E.G. Batterers Intervention, alternative to Battering, we all know that -- Non remedy but ‘feel good guaranteed creation of roles and groups that do not need to exist.

[Interjection: 9/2010 commentary from his blog on the ideal batterers' intervention group, for society to show they are serious about stopping abuse -- would be two to three years, 2-3 times a week. [hover cursor]. I think this reveals about where it's coming from -- run more classes and therapy, behavioral change, trainings, etc. -- right?]]

(Claudine writes: )Ok so back to Lundy and his job of teaching batterer intervention groups. He began to notice a pattern, with the abusers, the hatred, the use of the mothers children, hence, Lundys books.
at that time amazing!!.....There is no legal venue or resources through Lundy or PMA, any time a mother asks for his expert assistance or resources for legal the mothers are quickly shut out ignored. there is nothing there but a fee to join a demand for court records [??]], for his personal use in writing more books, plays doing more speaking, his expert and leadership makes him the typical god. because I say so. still has he or PMA helped any mother?
no. . .. .Four years ago. [=2009].. Janice began to threaten moms, demanded that any association with any other group or entity was not allowed . . .In all these years Lundy stays quiet. quietly profiting off his work of the sufferings of battered mothers and her children. Never does he take a stand with anything that would HELP legally politically,

Then the one time he does, he choose to do the unthinkable-- public damnation of a battered mother. You did not hurt me Lundy, you hurt so many mothers who feel like you beat them the worst.
you were behind the scenes told by countless mothers the issues with Janice -- you ignored them. "

So that's when I went looking, found these other corps, and attempted to tell CD (I don't hang in the same circles).

And another, (ditto) me ("Let's Get Honest" will do for now)-- who continues to say, "STEP ONE is to find, and read, the tax returns, and watch the money fly away-- or shift quickly from one to another when one's about to be "outed."

This pattern of filing, or forgetting to file, and comparing one with another -- is not only interesting, I do believe it's a character indicator.

So, this little mini-history, with is characters, corps, and county-connections, also tells us (all) what the domestic violence intervention movement is doing, as opposed to what it's preaching, these days -- and by "these days," I do mean, now. Overall, "We are not amused," it's hardly a laughing matter -- but this one does have an entertainment factor to it. It's a "whodathunkit?!" situation, and an indicator of how gullible the public truly is.

IDEA: Legislatively Require ALL current sitting judges AND retired judges to post RIGHT ON THE *.gov website -- ANY AND ALL nonprofits they have formed, along with the EIN#s. You'd be shocked.. Also, enough of them lie (fail to disclose) that there has to be some way to look such things up, too!
(continued on 11/1/2013 post. Or check it out yourself).

Copyright “fair use” doctrine cited USC Title 17 Ch 1 SEC. 107

The "fair use" doctrine allows limited reproduction of copyrighted works for educational and research purposes. The relevant portion of the copyright statue provides that the "fair use" of a copyrighted work, including reproduction "for purposes such as criticism, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research" is not an infringement of copyright. U.S.C. Title 17, Chapter 1, Sec. 107.

[We'll see how appropriate this Gravatar is, but for now, it and it's references are up...]

I am still in shock (but far more activist shock than years ago) over What Happened in the 1980s, 1990s across the country -- to restructure WELFARE justifying this on the basis of BUDGET (which I now understand to be a partial-truth used to clobber Americans with and cause them to quake in fear about becoming what, well, many have already become -- destitute, begging, distressed, and besides that, like me, they have become disgusted with what they thought were some rights, some courts, some justice, some laws in place to protect them, and some due process in those courts. Only to find out the "family" was the patient, and public-funded therapies for private pockets was the plan, and almost any local institution (court, social service agency, nonprofit DV agency, family court facilitator's office, child support agency, law enforcement outpost (police station, etc. to either exchange, or get some help to retrieve children after a weekly court-ordered exchange), and now we have family justice centers, too.
Common sense and understanding that ANY point in time (like between 1999 and 2001), look at several systems to understand which way the profits are flowing, how, and to whom= why, will go a long way.
. [NYPort Authority, World Trade Towers, steel core (to address the "pancake" factor if it fell, through a "Collapse into Footprint" design; asbestos lawsuits/liability, gale-force winds, $7 billion of double-indemnity insurance, 3000 dead]...
Meanwhile, there's "Clinton Bodycount" (no, I'm not referring to men, women and children who have been murdered, nationwide, around custody, divorce and child support issues, since domestic violence became a relationship problem and not a crime (and divorces went "no-fault" and irreconcilable differences went into Conciliation Courts -- or, if people don't submit, "high-conflict dockets. No, these are specific to the Clintons, whether in Arkansas, or DC, or those evidently in the way or a potential popularity liability.).
the site "Clinton Body Count" at least organizes them, into: Most Recent, Most Famous, Dead: Fundraisers, Witnesses, Women,, Investigators, Commerce Dept., and then some people who were accidentally too close, or stumbled upon things near Mena, Arkansas [Ives/Henry], or knew about it [Coney, McKaskle, Collins], or knew about THAT [Rhodes, Winters, Kettleson], or, et cetera. And several more, including attorneys, investigative reporters, and so forth. Re: investigative reporters that suddenly committed suicide, (Casolaro), RedDirtReport (2012, AGriffin) details on: Jackson Stephens, BCCI, drug money [AFDA, the Octopus, etc. Read the first paragraph].
My point isn't to scare, but to be aware. As a survivor of some horrendous enough events, and horrendous handling of just two young people, my only children from only one father, while married -- I do know that the danger and the denial are both dangerous.
So, we ought to understand gov't accounting BASICS in historic context, and simply be aware that drug money and money laundering does affect basic institutions. Don't lose hope -- but also don't lose sight of the urgency of the times, or the bedrock truths of what this means to any grandchildren and beyond.
[[[Bodycounts as collateral, not primary, damages to increased profits are not new, and they are "bipartisan." Keep eyes on THAT prize, as uncomfortable as the reality is.]]]

However, after 9/11 and Homeland, welfare reform's programs kept expanding, faith-based offices opening, and the HHS revolving doors were spinning. DOJ no different, and everyone (but those who have to stand by while they are being helped and demonstrated upon) seems to have their hands in the pie.

We forgot to factor in multiple systems converging to control the federal faucet, privatize its showers, and to restore "balance" in the status quo: Fathers, Faith-based, Families and of course it's all about the Children. (Sure yo' right....)
In 2014 (my 20th+year since first reporting to family, ob/gyn doctor, clients, employers, neighbors (although they surely knew from the noise and occasional police cars showing up at the home), and of course faith-based groups, that I, Mom, was getting battered, and getting more and more concerned about survival, without means to just walk out, with kids -- and have somewhere other than homeless or in a shelter to land), and having realized now for about 5 years the role that welfare reform played in this -- I just discovered the "Bruce Reed Welfare Reform Series" -- lists, and links to scanned documents of BOXES (alpha by topic) of Wm. J. Clinton Presidential Library's material on these critical years: 1993-1994.

The Welfare Reform Series includes material pertaining to legislative strategy, analysis of state plans, child support, speeches, rollout of the Working Group's proposal, and various drafts of welfare reform bills authored by the Working Group, Congress, and public/private organizations. President Clinton established an interagency group, the White House Working Group on Welfare Reform, Family Support, and Independence (1993-1994), in order to carry out his campaign promise “to end welfare as we know it.” The Working Group was co-chaired by Bruce Reed."